Love and commitment - Radboud Repository

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University

Nijmegen

The following full text is a publisher's version.

For additional information about this publication click this link.

https://hdl.handle.net/2066/227853

Please be advised that this information was generated on 2022-09-19 and may be subject to

change.

https://hdl.handle.net/2066/227853

550338-L-os-Vardi550338-L-os-Vardi550338-L-os-Vardi550338-L-os-Vardi

Love and commitment The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb ‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew Ruti Vardi

Love and comm

itment The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb ‘love’ in B

iblical Hebrew

Ruti Vardi

550338-L-bw-Vardi550338-L-bw-Vardi550338-L-bw-Vardi550338-L-bw-VardiProcessed on: 9-11-2020Processed on: 9-11-2020Processed on: 9-11-2020Processed on: 9-11-2020 PDF page: 1PDF page: 1PDF page: 1PDF page: 1

Love and Commitment

The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb ‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew


© 2020 Ruti Vardi Cover drawing: © Ruti Vardi (inspired by ‘Naomi and Ruth’, Evelyn De Morgan, 1887) Printed by Ipskamp Drukkers, Enschede

Love and Commitment


Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. J.H.J.M. van Krieken, volgens besluit van het college van decanen

in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 21 december 2020 om 10.30 uur precies

door

Ruth Vardi geboren op 31 maart 1962

te Tiberius, Israël


© 2020 Ruti Vardi Cover drawing: © Ruti Vardi (inspired by ‘Naomi and Ruth’, Evelyn De Morgan, 1887) Printed by Ipskamp Drukkers, Enschede

Love and Commitment


Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. J.H.J.M. van Krieken, volgens besluit van het college van decanen

in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 21 december 2020 om 10.30 uur precies

door

Ruth Vardi geboren op 31 maart 1962

te Tiberius, Israël


Promotoren: Prof. dr. E.J. van Wolde Prof. dr. H. de Hoop

Copromotor: Dr. S.A.M. Lestrade Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. C.H. Hübenthal Prof. dr. D.A.T. Müller Prof. dr. P. Van Hecke (KU Leuven, België) Dr. L. Hogeweg Dr. R. Nikolsky (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)

Dedicated to the memory of Hans Koersen


Promotoren: Prof. dr. E.J. van Wolde Prof. dr. H. de Hoop

Copromotor: Dr. S.A.M. Lestrade Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. C.H. Hübenthal Prof. dr. D.A.T. Müller Prof. dr. P. Van Hecke (KU Leuven, België) Dr. L. Hogeweg Dr. R. Nikolsky (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)

Dedicated to the memory of Hans Koersen


Contents Acknowledgements xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 General aims and perspective 1 1.2 Main Problems 2

1.2.1 ’hb and the category of emotion 2 1.2.2 ’hb and social hierarchy 3 1.2.3 ’hb and its polysemy 5 1.2.4 ’hb and semantic transitivity 5

1.3 Contribution of the present thesis 6 1.4 Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible 7 1.5 Structure of the thesis 8

2 Meaning and conceptualisation of emotion in language 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Analytical concepts 12 2.2.1 Morpho-syntactic and lexical aspects of meaning and

conceptualisation 12 2.2.2 Polysemy and prototypicality 15 2.2.3 Source and cognitive processes of conceptualisation 20 2.2.3.1 Imagery and mental representation 20 2.2.3.2 Conceptual metaphors and metonyms 21 2.2.3.3 Summary 24 2.3 Universal vs. culture-specific experience as source of conceptualisation 25 2.3.1 Universal (physical) vs. culture-specific experience 25 2.3.2 The sociocultural cognition of emotion 30

3 Emotion and Biblical Hebrew 35 3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 Emotions in Biblical Hebrew 37 3.2.1 Fear 38 3.2.2 Anger 39 3.2.3 Joy 40 3.2.4 Grief/Distress 41 3.2.5 Shame 42 3.2.6 Jealousy 43 3.2.7 Hate 44 3.2.8 Conclusions 44 3.3 ’hb ‘love’ in BH 45 3.3.1 Earlier work 46 3.3.2 Summary 51 3.4 ’hb in the present study 52 3.4.1 Aims 52 3.4.2 Theoretical-methodological approach 53


Contents Acknowledgements xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 General aims and perspective 1 1.2 Main Problems 2

1.2.1 ’hb and the category of emotion 2 1.2.2 ’hb and social hierarchy 3 1.2.3 ’hb and its polysemy 5 1.2.4 ’hb and semantic transitivity 5

1.3 Contribution of the present thesis 6 1.4 Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible 7 1.5 Structure of the thesis 8

2 Meaning and conceptualisation of emotion in language 11 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Analytical concepts 12 2.2.1 Morpho-syntactic and lexical aspects of meaning and

conceptualisation 12 2.2.2 Polysemy and prototypicality 15 2.2.3 Source and cognitive processes of conceptualisation 20 2.2.3.1 Imagery and mental representation 20 2.2.3.2 Conceptual metaphors and metonyms 21 2.2.3.3 Summary 24 2.3 Universal vs. culture-specific experience as source of conceptualisation 25 2.3.1 Universal (physical) vs. culture-specific experience 25 2.3.2 The sociocultural cognition of emotion 30

3 Emotion and Biblical Hebrew 35 3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 Emotions in Biblical Hebrew 37 3.2.1 Fear 38 3.2.2 Anger 39 3.2.3 Joy 40 3.2.4 Grief/Distress 41 3.2.5 Shame 42 3.2.6 Jealousy 43 3.2.7 Hate 44 3.2.8 Conclusions 44 3.3 ’hb ‘love’ in BH 45 3.3.1 Earlier work 46 3.3.2 Summary 51 3.4 ’hb in the present study 52 3.4.1 Aims 52 3.4.2 Theoretical-methodological approach 53


viii

4 The social-hierarchical character of ’hb 55 4.1 Introduction and working hypothesis 55 4.2 ’hb in BH 59 4.2.1 Cultural domains 59 4.2.2 Male-dominance and gender-based hierarchy 61 4.3 The use of ’hb in nine cultural domains 63 4.3.1 ’hb in the cultural domain of Divinity 63 4.3.2 ’hb in the cultural domain of Kinship 68 4.3.3 ’hb in the cultural domain of Adultery 71 4.3.4 ’hb in the cultural domain of Romance 73 4.3.5 ’hb in the cultural domains of Social Relations and Politics 74 4.3.6 ’hb in the cultural domains of Conduct/Activity, Inanimate Concrete, and

Inanimate Abstract 78 4.4 The relevance of volition to the conceptualisation of ’hb 80 4.5 Conclusion 82 5 The semantic transitivity of ’hb 85 5.1 Introduction 85 5.2 Transitivity and prototypicality 85 5.2.1 Prototypical transitivity 85 5.2.2 Prototypical transitivity and emotion 90 5.3 ’hb in the light of the ‘maximal distict arguments hypothesis’ 92 5.3.1 Transitivity in the domain of Divinity 95 5.3.2 Transitivity regardless of Divinity 99 5.4 Summary and conclusions 101 6 The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb 103 6.1 Introduction 103 6.2 The conceptual link between ’hb and the ancient Israelite culture 103 6.2.1 The kinship system of ancient Israel 103 6.2.2 From intimate affection to social interaction 108 6.3 The role of ’hb in the social order in the Hebrew Bible 114 6.3.1 Gender-based hierarchy 114 6.3.2 Semantic asymmetry 117 6.3.3 Inanimate contexts 119 6.4 Conclusion 120 7 ’hb and other concepts in BH 123 7.1 Introduction 123 7.2 Biblical concepts unrelated to affection 125 7.2.1 Sadness 125 7.2.2 Sensory perception (r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm’ ‘hearing’) 128 7.2.3 Powerful contact and destruction 131 7.3 Comparison between ’hb and five other concepts unrelated to affection 133 7.3.1 Agglomerative Hierarchical Cluster Analysis 133 7.3.2 Clustering 136 7.3.3 Discussion and conclusions 147 7.3.3.1 Gender-based hierarchy 148 7.3.3.2 Semantic asymmetry 149

7.4 Summary 150 8 The sociocultural conceptualisation of ḥen ‘favour’ 151 8.1 Introduction 151 8.2 Meaning, frequency, and general distribution of [X ffi Y] 152 8.3 Grammatical analysis and cultural origin 154 8.3.1 Syntactic relations and semantic roles 154 8.3.2 Cultural origin 156 8.4 Pragmatic motivation 157 8.4.1 Sociocultural identity of X and Y 157 8.4.2 Pragmatic function 159 8.4.3 Summary 160 8.5 Embodiment of ḥēn ‘favour’ 160 8.6 Conclusion 161 9 Conclusions 163 9.1 ’hb as a sociocultural model 164 9.2 The polysemy/semantic field of ’hb 165 9.3 Transitivity as a cultural phenomenon 166 9.4 ’hb and gender 166 9.5 ’hb in the light of linguistic and cultural interplay: some reflection 167 9.6 Contribution to biblical studies 169 Bibliography 171 Appendix I 183 Appendix II 193 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) 195 Biographical notes 201


ix

4 The social-hierarchical character of ’hb 55 4.1 Introduction and working hypothesis 55 4.2 ’hb in BH 59 4.2.1 Cultural domains 59 4.2.2 Male-dominance and gender-based hierarchy 61 4.3 The use of ’hb in nine cultural domains 63 4.3.1 ’hb in the cultural domain of Divinity 63 4.3.2 ’hb in the cultural domain of Kinship 68 4.3.3 ’hb in the cultural domain of Adultery 71 4.3.4 ’hb in the cultural domain of Romance 73 4.3.5 ’hb in the cultural domains of Social Relations and Politics 74 4.3.6 ’hb in the cultural domains of Conduct/Activity, Inanimate Concrete, and

Inanimate Abstract 78 4.4 The relevance of volition to the conceptualisation of ’hb 80 4.5 Conclusion 82 5 The semantic transitivity of ’hb 85 5.1 Introduction 85 5.2 Transitivity and prototypicality 85 5.2.1 Prototypical transitivity 85 5.2.2 Prototypical transitivity and emotion 90 5.3 ’hb in the light of the ‘maximal distict arguments hypothesis’ 92 5.3.1 Transitivity in the domain of Divinity 95 5.3.2 Transitivity regardless of Divinity 99 5.4 Summary and conclusions 101 6 The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb 103 6.1 Introduction 103 6.2 The conceptual link between ’hb and the ancient Israelite culture 103 6.2.1 The kinship system of ancient Israel 103 6.2.2 From intimate affection to social interaction 108 6.3 The role of ’hb in the social order in the Hebrew Bible 114 6.3.1 Gender-based hierarchy 114 6.3.2 Semantic asymmetry 117 6.3.3 Inanimate contexts 119 6.4 Conclusion 120 7 ’hb and other concepts in BH 123 7.1 Introduction 123 7.2 Biblical concepts unrelated to affection 125 7.2.1 Sadness 125 7.2.2 Sensory perception (r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm’ ‘hearing’) 128 7.2.3 Powerful contact and destruction 131 7.3 Comparison between ’hb and five other concepts unrelated to affection 133 7.3.1 Agglomerative Hierarchical Cluster Analysis 133 7.3.2 Clustering 136 7.3.3 Discussion and conclusions 147 7.3.3.1 Gender-based hierarchy 148 7.3.3.2 Semantic asymmetry 149

7.4 Summary 150 8 The sociocultural conceptualisation of ḥen ‘favour’ 151 8.1 Introduction 151 8.2 Meaning, frequency, and general distribution of [X ffi Y] 152 8.3 Grammatical analysis and cultural origin 154 8.3.1 Syntactic relations and semantic roles 154 8.3.2 Cultural origin 156 8.4 Pragmatic motivation 157 8.4.1 Sociocultural identity of X and Y 157 8.4.2 Pragmatic function 159 8.4.3 Summary 160 8.5 Embodiment of ḥēn ‘favour’ 160 8.6 Conclusion 161 9 Conclusions 163 9.1 ’hb as a sociocultural model 164 9.2 The polysemy/semantic field of ’hb 165 9.3 Transitivity as a cultural phenomenon 166 9.4 ’hb and gender 166 9.5 ’hb in the light of linguistic and cultural interplay: some reflection 167 9.6 Contribution to biblical studies 169 Bibliography 171 Appendix I 183 Appendix II 193 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) 195 Biographical notes 201


Acknowledgments The work on this dissertation would not have been initiated without my love for the ancient language of the Hebrew Bible. It could not have been completed without the direct and indirect help and support of vatious people along the way. I wish to express my thanks and gratitude to those people, starting with my supervisors. My thanks and gratitude firstly go to Ellen van Wolde, who granted me the opportunity to develop the idea underlying this project, who kept challenging me through the work process, who generously guided me through the wonderful paths of the exegesis, and invited me to participate in seminars. I am very grateful for the inspiration, the thought-provoking conversa-tions and the great support in both practical and substantive aspects of the project. I wish to express my deep thanks to Helen de Hoop, for her sincere devotion and constant willingness to provide guiding and advise, for her critical and fruitful feedback and suggestions, and for including me in the research group of Grammar & Cognition. A big thanks goes to Sander Lestrade for his benevolent help and guiding in the statistical analysis, and for his further im-portant and challenging feedback. A special thanks goes to Ad Foolen, who has been generously sharing with me his knowledge and ideas about cognitive linguistics and the conceptualisation of emotion in lan-guage, since I was a BA student, and for connecting me with other scholars. Our talks have always been very inspiring to me. Another special thanks goes to Lut Callaert for her continu-ous help and support in various matters, for her kind help with the Dutch summary, and for her always warm concern. I wish to thank Susanne Brouwer, Roeland van Hout, and Sebastian Collin for their consul-tancy regarding the statistical analysis, Amanda Davis Bledsoe for the proofreading, and Aren Wilson-Wright for his help with the transliteration. In the years 2012-2016 I was part of the research group Grammar & Cognition at the depart-ment of linguistics. I wish to thank the members of the group during those years for collabora-tion in different linguistic projects, and for the useful comments on papers and presentations. Thanks goes as well to my colleagues at the FTR faculty, Nienke Fortuin, Gian Ackermans, Nicolet Boekhof-van de Voort, Albert Kamp, Matthijs den Dulk, and Seth Bledsoe for their interest and for conversations about Hebrew and beyond. These collaborations, interactions, and talks have contributed other perspectives to my ideas regarding the thesis and added pleas-ure to the work. The interest, care, concern, and support of dear friends and colleagues were always present and encouraging. I wish to thank Shlomo Izre’el for his friendly as well as scholarly interest in the research, for the interesting talks, and for always being willing to help. I wish to thank Shlomit Lehavi for her interest and care, for her friendly inspection of the timeline, and for her input and help with the layout of the book cover. I wish to thank Sammie Tarenskeen for adding extra value to the work on the thesis at the faculty in the first years, and for her continuous interest and concern thereafter. I thank Debbie Fried, Moran Palmoni, Orly Hadadi, Rutie Izre’el, Leah Ferries-Scott, Hila Moscovich, Keiko Yoshioka, Eric Kellerman, Leon Shor, Hülya Sahin, Gertie Hoymann, Olga Krasnoukhova, Annemarrie Verkerk, Ahmed and Islah Hassan, Lilach Danziger, Victorine Franke, Janneke Bos, and Bonita Verbeek for their constant interest and care.


Acknowledgments The work on this dissertation would not have been initiated without my love for the ancient language of the Hebrew Bible. It could not have been completed without the direct and indirect help and support of vatious people along the way. I wish to express my thanks and gratitude to those people, starting with my supervisors. My thanks and gratitude firstly go to Ellen van Wolde, who granted me the opportunity to develop the idea underlying this project, who kept challenging me through the work process, who generously guided me through the wonderful paths of the exegesis, and invited me to participate in seminars. I am very grateful for the inspiration, the thought-provoking conversa-tions and the great support in both practical and substantive aspects of the project. I wish to express my deep thanks to Helen de Hoop, for her sincere devotion and constant willingness to provide guiding and advise, for her critical and fruitful feedback and suggestions, and for including me in the research group of Grammar & Cognition. A big thanks goes to Sander Lestrade for his benevolent help and guiding in the statistical analysis, and for his further im-portant and challenging feedback. A special thanks goes to Ad Foolen, who has been generously sharing with me his knowledge and ideas about cognitive linguistics and the conceptualisation of emotion in lan-guage, since I was a BA student, and for connecting me with other scholars. Our talks have always been very inspiring to me. Another special thanks goes to Lut Callaert for her continu-ous help and support in various matters, for her kind help with the Dutch summary, and for her always warm concern. I wish to thank Susanne Brouwer, Roeland van Hout, and Sebastian Collin for their consul-tancy regarding the statistical analysis, Amanda Davis Bledsoe for the proofreading, and Aren Wilson-Wright for his help with the transliteration. In the years 2012-2016 I was part of the research group Grammar & Cognition at the depart-ment of linguistics. I wish to thank the members of the group during those years for collabora-tion in different linguistic projects, and for the useful comments on papers and presentations. Thanks goes as well to my colleagues at the FTR faculty, Nienke Fortuin, Gian Ackermans, Nicolet Boekhof-van de Voort, Albert Kamp, Matthijs den Dulk, and Seth Bledsoe for their interest and for conversations about Hebrew and beyond. These collaborations, interactions, and talks have contributed other perspectives to my ideas regarding the thesis and added pleas-ure to the work. The interest, care, concern, and support of dear friends and colleagues were always present and encouraging. I wish to thank Shlomo Izre’el for his friendly as well as scholarly interest in the research, for the interesting talks, and for always being willing to help. I wish to thank Shlomit Lehavi for her interest and care, for her friendly inspection of the timeline, and for her input and help with the layout of the book cover. I wish to thank Sammie Tarenskeen for adding extra value to the work on the thesis at the faculty in the first years, and for her continuous interest and concern thereafter. I thank Debbie Fried, Moran Palmoni, Orly Hadadi, Rutie Izre’el, Leah Ferries-Scott, Hila Moscovich, Keiko Yoshioka, Eric Kellerman, Leon Shor, Hülya Sahin, Gertie Hoymann, Olga Krasnoukhova, Annemarrie Verkerk, Ahmed and Islah Hassan, Lilach Danziger, Victorine Franke, Janneke Bos, and Bonita Verbeek for their constant interest and care.


xii

I am very grateful to Ria and Thijs Vink, Sabine Vink and Eddo Pheifer for their kindness and their warm support. I wish to thank my wonderful loving family for their cheerful support, for their curiosity, and for always being there for me. I owe my deepest gratitude to Hans, for his enthusiasm and support of my commitment to this research, and most of all for his unique and endless love.

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 General aims and perspective The aim of the present thesis is to explore the meaning and conceptualisation of the lexeme ’hb ‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew (henceforth BH) and its relation to the culture of ancient Israel, as reflected in the biblical texts.1 By taking a cognitive-linguistic and sociocultural approach and applying the methodology of corpus linguistics, the thesis contributes to the semantic-concep-tual examination of ’hb ‘love’ in BH. Accordingly, every occurrence of ’hb in BH is examined on the basis of its linguistic and biblical-cultural context. The former concerns the linguistic aspects in the use of the lexeme, as for example, word classes, syntactic constructions, syntactic relations (e.g. subject, object) and semantic roles (e.g. agent, patient). The latter covers the metalinguistic aspects, such as the (social) identity of participants (i.e. lover and beloved) in ’hb-events and the cultural domain in which the event occurs (e.g., divinity, kinship). The linguistic forms and distribution of ’hb are both the immediate object of the study as well as the means through which other underlying concepts can be explored. The thesis concentrates on the sociocultural order of the ancient Israelite culture, as a signif-icant conceptual source of the use of ’hb in BH. Sociocultural order in the present context refers to the different sociocultural systems, such as kinship and politics, the relations between them, and related sociocultural themes, for example, legal issues and cultic practices. In other words, the main aim of the present examination is to reveal the underlying conceptions in the ancient sociocultural order that may explain the use of ’hb in the different (con)texts of the Hebrew Bible. The research question of the thesis is therefore: how does the use of ’hb in BH reflects the social order of ancient Israel as reflected in the Hebrew Bible? The present thesis takes a general cognitive-linguistic-sociocultural approach. This approach is centred on language usage, here represented by written texts. In taking this broad approach, the present investigation is able to engage and appreciate the complexity of ’hb as a sociocul-tural concept and a linguistic construction (i.e. different forms of the lexeme) in an ancient written text. This approach further serves as a bridge between the surviving readable text and the ancient extinct culture in which it was written, regardless of specific thematic textual con-tents. Inspired by ethnographic studies on emotions (for example, Lutz 1982, 1988 and Rosaldo 1983), this examination represents an attempt to treat the biblical texts as similarly as possible to natural language use. The key to this approach is a detailed examination of the distribution of ’hb, wherein different contexts contribute to the meaning and conceptualisation of this lex-eme in the target language. Hence, the conceptualisation of ’hb is understood on the basis of

1 The ancient Israelite culture described here is present in the subsequent historical periods of the pre-monarchic period with various chiefdoms, the monarchic period with the United Kingdom of David and Solomon and, later, the two kingdoms of ancient Israel and Judah, the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (=Israel) and the surviving kingdom of Judah, the Babylonian exile of the Judaean elite, the province Yehud under Persian and Hellenistic rule, and the province of Palestina (with Galilea, Samaria, and Judaea as its main administrative areas) under Roman rule. For the sake of convenience, the term ancient Israel is used in this thesis to represent these various political unities.


I am very grateful to Ria and Thijs Vink, Sabine Vink and Eddo Pheifer for their kindness and their warm support. I wish to thank my wonderful loving family for their cheerful support, for their curiosity, and for always being there for me. I owe my deepest gratitude to Hans, for his enthusiasm and support of my commitment to this research, and most of all for his unique and endless love.

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 General aims and perspective The aim of the present thesis is to explore the meaning and conceptualisation of the lexeme ’hb ‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew (henceforth BH) and its relation to the culture of ancient Israel, as reflected in the biblical texts.1 By taking a cognitive-linguistic and sociocultural approach and applying the methodology of corpus linguistics, the thesis contributes to the semantic-concep-tual examination of ’hb ‘love’ in BH. Accordingly, every occurrence of ’hb in BH is examined on the basis of its linguistic and biblical-cultural context. The former concerns the linguistic aspects in the use of the lexeme, as for example, word classes, syntactic constructions, syntactic relations (e.g. subject, object) and semantic roles (e.g. agent, patient). The latter covers the metalinguistic aspects, such as the (social) identity of participants (i.e. lover and beloved) in ’hb-events and the cultural domain in which the event occurs (e.g., divinity, kinship). The linguistic forms and distribution of ’hb are both the immediate object of the study as well as the means through which other underlying concepts can be explored. The thesis concentrates on the sociocultural order of the ancient Israelite culture, as a signif-icant conceptual source of the use of ’hb in BH. Sociocultural order in the present context refers to the different sociocultural systems, such as kinship and politics, the relations between them, and related sociocultural themes, for example, legal issues and cultic practices. In other words, the main aim of the present examination is to reveal the underlying conceptions in the ancient sociocultural order that may explain the use of ’hb in the different (con)texts of the Hebrew Bible. The research question of the thesis is therefore: how does the use of ’hb in BH reflects the social order of ancient Israel as reflected in the Hebrew Bible? The present thesis takes a general cognitive-linguistic-sociocultural approach. This approach is centred on language usage, here represented by written texts. In taking this broad approach, the present investigation is able to engage and appreciate the complexity of ’hb as a sociocul-tural concept and a linguistic construction (i.e. different forms of the lexeme) in an ancient written text. This approach further serves as a bridge between the surviving readable text and the ancient extinct culture in which it was written, regardless of specific thematic textual con-tents. Inspired by ethnographic studies on emotions (for example, Lutz 1982, 1988 and Rosaldo 1983), this examination represents an attempt to treat the biblical texts as similarly as possible to natural language use. The key to this approach is a detailed examination of the distribution of ’hb, wherein different contexts contribute to the meaning and conceptualisation of this lex-eme in the target language. Hence, the conceptualisation of ’hb is understood on the basis of

1 The ancient Israelite culture described here is present in the subsequent historical periods of the pre-monarchic period with various chiefdoms, the monarchic period with the United Kingdom of David and Solomon and, later, the two kingdoms of ancient Israel and Judah, the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (=Israel) and the surviving kingdom of Judah, the Babylonian exile of the Judaean elite, the province Yehud under Persian and Hellenistic rule, and the province of Palestina (with Galilea, Samaria, and Judaea as its main administrative areas) under Roman rule. For the sake of convenience, the term ancient Israel is used in this thesis to represent these various political unities.


Chapter 1 ׀ 2

its use in both the text and the biblical contexts. Applying a corpus study enables a thorough examination of the occurrences of ’hb and the relations among these occurrences at different linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural levels. In particular, the use of ’hb is annotated accord-ing to different categories, including biblical contexts, gender, sociolcultural identity (of lover and beloved), connotation (e.g. positive, negative), linguistic forms and constructions, and pragmatic function of clause (i.e. function within discourse). On the basis of these annotations and their relative frequencies, different patterns in the use of ’hb can be signalled and analysed. The Hebrew Bible is a relatively small corpus for the examination of language use, as patterns of usage are ideally examined on the basis of large, spoken and written, corpora. However, the Hebrew Bible comprises a variety of text types, contents, and contexts, which undoubtedly contributes to a profound understanding of the meaning and conceptualisation of ’hb. 1.2 Main problems 1.2.1 ’hb and the category of emotion The translation of ’hb as ‘love’ does not entirely, accurately and adequately convey its meaning and is biased by the meaning and connotation of the notion of ‘love’ in the present day, espe-cially in Western cultures. The occurrences of ’hb in BH show that it can be considered a member of the semantic category of emotion, but at the same time the specific occurrences of the lexeme reveal a much more complex meaning. For the sake of convenience, ’hb is generally translated as ‘love’ or ‘affection’ throughout the thesis, though the different senses and nuances in the meaning are elucidated in the relevant places. This problem of translation has consequences not merely for the understanding of ’hb but also of emotion in BH in general. It is important to consider some of the common assumptions about the nature of emotions in the cognitive linguistic literature in this regard. According to one assumption emotion words (in particular verbs) usually encode inner, individual psycho-logical or mental states (see for example Croft 1993). Another related assumption defines emo-tion as a reaction to a stimulus, with or without a consequent behaviour (see, for example, Kövecses 1986, 2005; Lakoff 1987). Another relevant discussion in the literature deals with the very nature of the conceptual source of emotion in language, namely universal (physical) experience vs. culture-driven experience (see Wierzbicka 1999; Kövecses & Palmer 1999). A social-constructionist approach (e.g. Lutz 1982, 1988), on the other hand, emphasises the in-fluence of social structures and systems on the discourse of emotion, and hence the social rather than individual character of emotion. A question that arises in regard to emotions in the Hebrew Bible is whether or not the se-mantic-conceptual category of emotion exists in this collection of texts (see, for example, Kru-ger 2015; Lasater 2017). Studies on emotions in the Hebrew Bible often present a complex conceptualisation, which is tightly related to biblical themes and contexts, and may involve all aspects of human culture. Accordingly, emotions may be understood as inner states, rational thoughts, social interactions, conduct, or activities (see Mirguet 2016). The present thesis fol-lows this view and considers ’hb as a complex experience with an emotive kernel and a strong social orientation that is manifested in its involvement in different aspects of ancient Israelite

culture. The distribution of ’hb across the texts shows that the meaning of ’hb cannot always be straightforwardly understood as love or affection (so traditional definitions of the word), and also not as an inner experience/state or a spontaneous reaction to stimulus (see the cogni-tive linguistic approaches outlined above). Rather, ’hb in BH often denotes different types of social interactions, behaviours and activities. Furthermore, ’hb often entails volitionality to some extent, and especially in human-divine relationships. Adding another dimension to the complexity of this lexeme, it is apparently suitable for denoting not only interpersonal and human-divine interactions, but also for divine/human-inanimate types of events, as attested by the relatively common usage of ’hb in reference to an inanimate object. The thesis will further elucidate the relations between the different components in the mean-ing of the lexeme and their relation to what is understood as the kernel emotive component. The main question in this regard is, therefore, not if ’hb is a valid member of the category of emotion; rather, the questions are of what does the experience of ’hb consist and what conse-quence might this have for the conceptualisation of emotion in BH more generally. 1.2.2 ’hb and social hierarchy Most previous studies of the lexeme ’hb and the concept of ‘love’ in the Hebrew Bible have focused on particular themes (e.g., divinity, kinship), types of relationships (e.g., human-di-vine, man-woman), or text types (e.g., poetry, legislation). Probably the most common per-spective that has been studied is that of the human-divine relationship (see, for example, Moran 1963; Ackerman 2002; Lapsley 2003), though others have also concentrated on the perspec-tives of romance, sexuality and marriage (see Brenner 1997; van Wolde 2008). These studies, however, did not base their findings on an exhaustive corpus of ’hb, and confined their analyses to God and/or humans as lover and/or beloved rather than examining the use of ’hb with inan-imate subjects in these roles. The notable exception in this regard is the more recent, compre-hensive study by Bosman (2011), which takes a cognitive-lexicographic approach to the poly-semy of ’hb. Common to the findings of these previous studies is the centrality of the hierarchical aspect in the use of ’hb, particularly as it relates to either gender or social status. Accordingly, men are found to appear more frequently in the role of the lover than are women; in parent-child relationships, the lover is always a parent; love of humans for God is commanded, while love of God for humans is understood as spontaneous or volitional. This view has been challenged, however, in the most recent work on ’hb verbs (Nikolsky 2019), which takes a cognitive-evo-lutionary approach based on a study of text-types, and concludes that hierarchy in the use of ’hb is not as dominant as earlier studies tended to claim; rather, the different uses of ’hb verbs can be perhaps better explained on the basis of certain cognitive stages in the cultural evolution of humankind. The observed hierarchy and its possible dominance, however, indeed merit further investi-gation. More specifically, in the present research of the distribution of ’hb two main social hierarchical patterns are revealed. These are similar to earlier findings, though required some nuance, and are defined here as follows: (1) a social status-based hierarchy in interpersonal relations, and (2) semantic asymmetry in human-divine relations. In the first pattern, the lover


Introduction 3 ׀

its use in both the text and the biblical contexts. Applying a corpus study enables a thorough examination of the occurrences of ’hb and the relations among these occurrences at different linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural levels. In particular, the use of ’hb is annotated accord-ing to different categories, including biblical contexts, gender, sociolcultural identity (of lover and beloved), connotation (e.g. positive, negative), linguistic forms and constructions, and pragmatic function of clause (i.e. function within discourse). On the basis of these annotations and their relative frequencies, different patterns in the use of ’hb can be signalled and analysed. The Hebrew Bible is a relatively small corpus for the examination of language use, as patterns of usage are ideally examined on the basis of large, spoken and written, corpora. However, the Hebrew Bible comprises a variety of text types, contents, and contexts, which undoubtedly contributes to a profound understanding of the meaning and conceptualisation of ’hb. 1.2 Main problems 1.2.1 ’hb and the category of emotion The translation of ’hb as ‘love’ does not entirely, accurately and adequately convey its meaning and is biased by the meaning and connotation of the notion of ‘love’ in the present day, espe-cially in Western cultures. The occurrences of ’hb in BH show that it can be considered a member of the semantic category of emotion, but at the same time the specific occurrences of the lexeme reveal a much more complex meaning. For the sake of convenience, ’hb is generally translated as ‘love’ or ‘affection’ throughout the thesis, though the different senses and nuances in the meaning are elucidated in the relevant places. This problem of translation has consequences not merely for the understanding of ’hb but also of emotion in BH in general. It is important to consider some of the common assumptions about the nature of emotions in the cognitive linguistic literature in this regard. According to one assumption emotion words (in particular verbs) usually encode inner, individual psycho-logical or mental states (see for example Croft 1993). Another related assumption defines emo-tion as a reaction to a stimulus, with or without a consequent behaviour (see, for example, Kövecses 1986, 2005; Lakoff 1987). Another relevant discussion in the literature deals with the very nature of the conceptual source of emotion in language, namely universal (physical) experience vs. culture-driven experience (see Wierzbicka 1999; Kövecses & Palmer 1999). A social-constructionist approach (e.g. Lutz 1982, 1988), on the other hand, emphasises the in-fluence of social structures and systems on the discourse of emotion, and hence the social rather than individual character of emotion. A question that arises in regard to emotions in the Hebrew Bible is whether or not the se-mantic-conceptual category of emotion exists in this collection of texts (see, for example, Kru-ger 2015; Lasater 2017). Studies on emotions in the Hebrew Bible often present a complex conceptualisation, which is tightly related to biblical themes and contexts, and may involve all aspects of human culture. Accordingly, emotions may be understood as inner states, rational thoughts, social interactions, conduct, or activities (see Mirguet 2016). The present thesis fol-lows this view and considers ’hb as a complex experience with an emotive kernel and a strong social orientation that is manifested in its involvement in different aspects of ancient Israelite

culture. The distribution of ’hb across the texts shows that the meaning of ’hb cannot always be straightforwardly understood as love or affection (so traditional definitions of the word), and also not as an inner experience/state or a spontaneous reaction to stimulus (see the cogni-tive linguistic approaches outlined above). Rather, ’hb in BH often denotes different types of social interactions, behaviours and activities. Furthermore, ’hb often entails volitionality to some extent, and especially in human-divine relationships. Adding another dimension to the complexity of this lexeme, it is apparently suitable for denoting not only interpersonal and human-divine interactions, but also for divine/human-inanimate types of events, as attested by the relatively common usage of ’hb in reference to an inanimate object. The thesis will further elucidate the relations between the different components in the mean-ing of the lexeme and their relation to what is understood as the kernel emotive component. The main question in this regard is, therefore, not if ’hb is a valid member of the category of emotion; rather, the questions are of what does the experience of ’hb consist and what conse-quence might this have for the conceptualisation of emotion in BH more generally. 1.2.2 ’hb and social hierarchy Most previous studies of the lexeme ’hb and the concept of ‘love’ in the Hebrew Bible have focused on particular themes (e.g., divinity, kinship), types of relationships (e.g., human-di-vine, man-woman), or text types (e.g., poetry, legislation). Probably the most common per-spective that has been studied is that of the human-divine relationship (see, for example, Moran 1963; Ackerman 2002; Lapsley 2003), though others have also concentrated on the perspec-tives of romance, sexuality and marriage (see Brenner 1997; van Wolde 2008). These studies, however, did not base their findings on an exhaustive corpus of ’hb, and confined their analyses to God and/or humans as lover and/or beloved rather than examining the use of ’hb with inan-imate subjects in these roles. The notable exception in this regard is the more recent, compre-hensive study by Bosman (2011), which takes a cognitive-lexicographic approach to the poly-semy of ’hb. Common to the findings of these previous studies is the centrality of the hierarchical aspect in the use of ’hb, particularly as it relates to either gender or social status. Accordingly, men are found to appear more frequently in the role of the lover than are women; in parent-child relationships, the lover is always a parent; love of humans for God is commanded, while love of God for humans is understood as spontaneous or volitional. This view has been challenged, however, in the most recent work on ’hb verbs (Nikolsky 2019), which takes a cognitive-evo-lutionary approach based on a study of text-types, and concludes that hierarchy in the use of ’hb is not as dominant as earlier studies tended to claim; rather, the different uses of ’hb verbs can be perhaps better explained on the basis of certain cognitive stages in the cultural evolution of humankind. The observed hierarchy and its possible dominance, however, indeed merit further investi-gation. More specifically, in the present research of the distribution of ’hb two main social hierarchical patterns are revealed. These are similar to earlier findings, though required some nuance, and are defined here as follows: (1) a social status-based hierarchy in interpersonal relations, and (2) semantic asymmetry in human-divine relations. In the first pattern, the lover


Chapter 1 ׀ 4

usually holds a higher social status than the beloved. As men had a higher social status than women in ancient Israelite culture, in most cases of male-female relationships encoded by ’hb, the lover is the man. Similarly, in other types of relationships, the lover is more often to be identified as the individual with the higher social status, as, for example, a king and his serv-ants. A second pattern occurs in human-divine relationships, where either God or humans may be in the role of the lover and beloved, although the meaning of ’hb alternates on the basis of the identity of the lover: when God is the lover ’hb prototypically denotes choice or preference, while when the lover is human, ’hb denotes instead commandment to love God. A question that occurs in more than one study is how to account for hierarchy of what is understood as emotive experience. It is particularly the commanded use of ’hb in the context of divinity, where the people is commanded to love God, that raises this question (see for ex-ample Arnold 2011; Mirguet 2016). Social hierarchy entails rights, obligations, commitments, and in general a dictated behaviour. It is not obviously associated with emotive experience. Emotive experience such as love or affection is usually understood as spontaneous and unre-lated to social order and dictation of behaviour. This question is indeed in its place if we un-derstand ’hb merely as a spontaneous feeling of love, affection, affinity, or desire. However, this understanding does not necessarily apply to this lexeme and also not to the emotion cate-gory in BH, as was argued in the previous section. The two patterns identified above may imply the existence of an inherent hierarchical seman-tic component of ’hb, though certain “counter occurrences”, such as the love of a woman to a man in Song of Songs, show that the existence of such an inherent component cannot always be confirmed. Although ’hb can be seen as the prototypical lexeme of love and affection in BH (Bosman 2011), it is not the only means through which love/affection is expressed; other af-fection events occur that are not indicated by ’hb and that have no hierarchical connotation as well. This suggests that the specific use of the ’hb in BH may be related to, and even may play a role in the sociocultural order of ancient Israel, as it is reflected in the biblical texts. Put differently, the hierarchy in the use of ’hb suggests that something in the affection expressed by this lexeme, in the most primry intimate interpersonal relationships, is conceptually linked to other social, interpersonal and human-divine relationships. It is, therefore, one of the aims of the present study to explore the underlying motivations for the hierarchical use of the con-cept encoded by ’hb and the purpose it may serve in the texts, and to explore a possible con-ceptual relation between the emotive kernel of ’hb and social hierarchy. In addition to the question of hierarchy, the validity of findings on ’hb in previous studies is somewhat questionable, since none of them included a comparison with the use of other concepts in BH. The idea here is that any conclusion that can be drawn on the use of ’hb re-mains inadequate without investigating the use of other lexemes to some extent. If, for exam-ple, ’hb is indeed mainly hierarchical in BH, it does not necessarily mean that it is unique in this respect. The Hebrew Bible is, in general, more male- than female-oriented, e.g. men are usually the protagonists of narratives, and it is almost exclusively men, and not women, who fulfil high social, political and cultic positions in the texts. In addition, the nature of the text (i.e., as religious writings) obviously emphasises the superiority of God above humans, and, hence, the existence of a sociocultural hierarchy. These characteristics of the Hebrew Bible suggest that the hierarchical use of ’hb may not be an exception, but that other concepts may be hierarchically used as well. Thus, determining the hierarchical use of ’hb is not sufficient in

itself, but rather it may represent a more general pattern. A specification of this hierarchical use is, therefore, necessary - both in regard to its quality as well as in regard to its extent - relative to other concepts. In order to test this, five other concepts in BH – sadness, eyesight, hearing, hitting/striking, and devastation - are examined in regard to social hierarchy, as with-out such comparative information, any conclusions about the hierarchical use of ’hb are not sufficient. 1.2.3’hb and its polysemy The social-hierarchical use of ’hb is inseparable from its rich polysemy, which is indicated by the many different contexts in which the lexeme occurs, and, even more so, in the different relations that it encodes. Bosman (2011) addresses this polysemy from the perspective of pro-totypicality, and, accordingly, established the more and less prototypical senses of the lexeme. The prototypical senses occur in the very intimate interpersonal relationships, while other, less typical uses involve also an inanimate beloved. In addition to the different types of relation-ships that it encodes, ’hb also occurs in a variety of contexts where it is used in reference to many different topics: from kinship to divinity, foods to ideals, and physical to cognitive ac-tivities. The polysemy of ’hb crosses semantic and conceptual borders and raises a question in regard to its conceptual source, namely which underlying conception qualifies this lexeme to suit such a broad variety of contexts and semantic fields. The fact that the same lexeme can be used to encode so many different interpersonal and human-divine relations, as well as the af-finity of humans/God with inanimate things, implies the existence of a common conceptual source they all share, but with different distances from it. The present thesis approaches the polysemy of ’hb from the perspective of the sociocultural structure of ancient Israel. It will be shown how the different senses and contexts of ’hb origi-nate from the same conceptual source, which also provides an account for the social-hierar-chical use of this lexeme. It will be further shown how the different senses and contexts of ’hb together constitute a general sociocultural ideology. 1.2.4 ’hb and semantic transitivity The volitional component of ’hb mentioned above deserves further attention. The association between romantic affection or love and volition in language is not odd, especially in the more nuanced sense of desire. Batic (2011), for example, argued for the existence of a common volitional component in love-related concepts in African languages; the familiar refrain (often in songs) ‘I want you’ indicates a similar situation in English. Jackson et al. (2019) found that ‘love’ is associated with ‘want’ and ‘desire’ in many language families. Regardless of romance, association between love/affection and volition is not necessarily obvious; volition manifested in volitional deeds is more likely involved in love-events as consequence of the experience rather than as the experience itself. In other words, love as experience outside the context of romance may entail volitional deeds, but it is not necessarily volitional in essence, rather it may be a spontaneous reaction to stimulus. And yet, to some extent ’hb occurs as a volitional


Introduction 5 ׀

usually holds a higher social status than the beloved. As men had a higher social status than women in ancient Israelite culture, in most cases of male-female relationships encoded by ’hb, the lover is the man. Similarly, in other types of relationships, the lover is more often to be identified as the individual with the higher social status, as, for example, a king and his serv-ants. A second pattern occurs in human-divine relationships, where either God or humans may be in the role of the lover and beloved, although the meaning of ’hb alternates on the basis of the identity of the lover: when God is the lover ’hb prototypically denotes choice or preference, while when the lover is human, ’hb denotes instead commandment to love God. A question that occurs in more than one study is how to account for hierarchy of what is understood as emotive experience. It is particularly the commanded use of ’hb in the context of divinity, where the people is commanded to love God, that raises this question (see for ex-ample Arnold 2011; Mirguet 2016). Social hierarchy entails rights, obligations, commitments, and in general a dictated behaviour. It is not obviously associated with emotive experience. Emotive experience such as love or affection is usually understood as spontaneous and unre-lated to social order and dictation of behaviour. This question is indeed in its place if we un-derstand ’hb merely as a spontaneous feeling of love, affection, affinity, or desire. However, this understanding does not necessarily apply to this lexeme and also not to the emotion cate-gory in BH, as was argued in the previous section. The two patterns identified above may imply the existence of an inherent hierarchical seman-tic component of ’hb, though certain “counter occurrences”, such as the love of a woman to a man in Song of Songs, show that the existence of such an inherent component cannot always be confirmed. Although ’hb can be seen as the prototypical lexeme of love and affection in BH (Bosman 2011), it is not the only means through which love/affection is expressed; other af-fection events occur that are not indicated by ’hb and that have no hierarchical connotation as well. This suggests that the specific use of the ’hb in BH may be related to, and even may play a role in the sociocultural order of ancient Israel, as it is reflected in the biblical texts. Put differently, the hierarchy in the use of ’hb suggests that something in the affection expressed by this lexeme, in the most primry intimate interpersonal relationships, is conceptually linked to other social, interpersonal and human-divine relationships. It is, therefore, one of the aims of the present study to explore the underlying motivations for the hierarchical use of the con-cept encoded by ’hb and the purpose it may serve in the texts, and to explore a possible con-ceptual relation between the emotive kernel of ’hb and social hierarchy. In addition to the question of hierarchy, the validity of findings on ’hb in previous studies is somewhat questionable, since none of them included a comparison with the use of other concepts in BH. The idea here is that any conclusion that can be drawn on the use of ’hb re-mains inadequate without investigating the use of other lexemes to some extent. If, for exam-ple, ’hb is indeed mainly hierarchical in BH, it does not necessarily mean that it is unique in this respect. The Hebrew Bible is, in general, more male- than female-oriented, e.g. men are usually the protagonists of narratives, and it is almost exclusively men, and not women, who fulfil high social, political and cultic positions in the texts. In addition, the nature of the text (i.e., as religious writings) obviously emphasises the superiority of God above humans, and, hence, the existence of a sociocultural hierarchy. These characteristics of the Hebrew Bible suggest that the hierarchical use of ’hb may not be an exception, but that other concepts may be hierarchically used as well. Thus, determining the hierarchical use of ’hb is not sufficient in

itself, but rather it may represent a more general pattern. A specification of this hierarchical use is, therefore, necessary - both in regard to its quality as well as in regard to its extent - relative to other concepts. In order to test this, five other concepts in BH – sadness, eyesight, hearing, hitting/striking, and devastation - are examined in regard to social hierarchy, as with-out such comparative information, any conclusions about the hierarchical use of ’hb are not sufficient. 1.2.3’hb and its polysemy The social-hierarchical use of ’hb is inseparable from its rich polysemy, which is indicated by the many different contexts in which the lexeme occurs, and, even more so, in the different relations that it encodes. Bosman (2011) addresses this polysemy from the perspective of pro-totypicality, and, accordingly, established the more and less prototypical senses of the lexeme. The prototypical senses occur in the very intimate interpersonal relationships, while other, less typical uses involve also an inanimate beloved. In addition to the different types of relation-ships that it encodes, ’hb also occurs in a variety of contexts where it is used in reference to many different topics: from kinship to divinity, foods to ideals, and physical to cognitive ac-tivities. The polysemy of ’hb crosses semantic and conceptual borders and raises a question in regard to its conceptual source, namely which underlying conception qualifies this lexeme to suit such a broad variety of contexts and semantic fields. The fact that the same lexeme can be used to encode so many different interpersonal and human-divine relations, as well as the af-finity of humans/God with inanimate things, implies the existence of a common conceptual source they all share, but with different distances from it. The present thesis approaches the polysemy of ’hb from the perspective of the sociocultural structure of ancient Israel. It will be shown how the different senses and contexts of ’hb origi-nate from the same conceptual source, which also provides an account for the social-hierar-chical use of this lexeme. It will be further shown how the different senses and contexts of ’hb together constitute a general sociocultural ideology. 1.2.4 ’hb and semantic transitivity The volitional component of ’hb mentioned above deserves further attention. The association between romantic affection or love and volition in language is not odd, especially in the more nuanced sense of desire. Batic (2011), for example, argued for the existence of a common volitional component in love-related concepts in African languages; the familiar refrain (often in songs) ‘I want you’ indicates a similar situation in English. Jackson et al. (2019) found that ‘love’ is associated with ‘want’ and ‘desire’ in many language families. Regardless of romance, association between love/affection and volition is not necessarily obvious; volition manifested in volitional deeds is more likely involved in love-events as consequence of the experience rather than as the experience itself. In other words, love as experience outside the context of romance may entail volitional deeds, but it is not necessarily volitional in essence, rather it may be a spontaneous reaction to stimulus. And yet, to some extent ’hb occurs as a volitional


Chapter 1 ׀ 6

experience as well, most frequently in the context of divinity, and to an even greater extent when the lover is God. The volitionality of ’hb has further consequence to the transitivity of ’hb-events in BH. In linguistic theorising, emotion and mental verbs are in general (unless causative as, for example, the verbs irritate/please) non-prototypical transitive, or distant from prototypical tran-sitive events. Prototypical transitive events consist of a volitional, sentient, instigating, unaf-fected agent and an affected patient. An obvious example is a kill-event in which the killer is the agent and the one who is killed the patient. Love/affection-events are usually not associated with a volitional, unaffected agent, nor with an affected patient; rather, the lover is an experi-encer (to some extent affected her/himself) and the beloved is a theme or stimulus. Affected-ness of the theme may occur, but it can be seen as a side effect, i.e., an action of the experiencer toward the theme that is driven by the experience. The volitionality in the use of ’hb suggests that transitivity may to some extent be part of the meaning, at least in some contexts. Consequently, ’hb as an emotive-event may be closer to prototypical transitive events that emotive-events usually are. This problem is further discussed in Chapter 5. 1.3 Contribution of the present thesis Similarly to Bosman (2011), the present thesis expands the scope of investigation of ’hb to include the entire corpus of its usage, regardless of specific themes and text types. At the same time, this study continues the line of social-relational perspective that was brought out in dif-ferent ways in other studies, and emerges solely from the use of ’hb in the Hebrew Bible. The present thesis further elaborates on this and offers a sociocultural interpretation. It, thereby, extends beyond the lexical level and concentrates also on the motivation underlying the specific use of the lexeme and its association with socialness or social interaction. The combination of a cognitive-linguistic, usage-based approach with sociocultural focus contributes to a more inclusive understanding of ’hb, with implications for the broader under-standing of emotions in BH in general. Referring to BH as a form of language use, enables a broader examination that is independent of specific biblical themes. The themes, by all means relevant to the investigation, are revealed through the investigation but they do not lead it. The present thesis takes a bottom-up approach that offers a comprehensive account of the use of ’hb at the linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural levels. The contribution of the current thesis is made in two main ways. First, the investigation contributes to the general field of emotions in language, and, in particular, to the conceptuali-sation of love. The omnipresence of ’hb in the biblical contexts indicates the complexity un-derlying this lexeme and its significance to ancient Israelite culture. Second, the investigation contributes to a better understanding of ’hb in the biblical texts, both as a central theme (mostly in human-divine relationship) and as a member of the category of emotion. In particular, the thesis offers a thorough and detailed study on the association between ’hb as an emotion and the sociocultural order of ancient Israel as it is reflected in the Hebrew Bible. The different biblical themes in which this lexeme is involved are all relevant components of a whole (i.e.,

the comprehensive account offered here), but each of them on its own is not sufficient for the understanding of it. 1.4 Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible Biblical Hebrew is a (literary) written form of Ancient Hebrew, a Semitic language within the Northwest Semitic group of the Afro-Asian family. Ancient Hebrew was the language of the peoples of Israel and Judah, spoken in the Near East, mainly in the ancient Canaan (current Israel and Palestinian Authority), during the first millennium BCE. BH is the language of the Hebrew Bible (tanakh), the canonical Jewish scripture, which was written in different periods during the first millennium BCE. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of religious and other texts organised in three main parts – tôrâ ‘law’, nəbî’îm ‘prophets’, kətûbîm ‘writings’, each of which contains books of varying sizes. The collection consists of different types of text such as narrative and prescriptive/instructive, with different contents, such as genealogies, legisla-tion, oracles, wisdom, and poetry, written by unknown authors, and edited and re-edited by subsequent editors, for different audiences, between the 8th and the 3rd centuries BCE. The Hebrew Bible contains 425,185 words (source: Accordance, OakTree Software, Inc.). A linguistic investigation based on the collection of texts alone is obviously not optimal and might leave many questions unanswered. With non-existing documentation of spoken Ancient Hebrew from the same period, the Hebrew Bible is the main, and largest available corpus of the ancient language, and is used as such in the present thesis. In addition to the biblical mate-rials, there exists some epigraphic sources (many in pre-biblical Hebrew), consisting of short fragments of one or more words, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, of which about 20% are biblical texts written in Qumran Hebrew.2 The religious, and other texts of the Hebrew Bible are parts of the ancient Israelite culture in which they were written. The culture of ancient Israel and Judah was one of several different cultures that together formed the Canaanite culture in the land of Canaan. Like other cultures in the ancient Near East, Canaanite culture was predominantly rural agrarian, consisting mainly of farmers or shepherds. According to Noll (2013), who describes the culture of Israel and Judah within one category of all the Canaanite cultures, the common political system in the ancient cultures was kingdom, structurally based on patron-client relationships at different levels, from kings to shepherds and herders.3 In this relationship, patrons, usually men, pro-vided protection to the people, who, in turn, had to work for or pay tax to the patrons. The patron-client structure, Noll (2013) notes, was also the common pattern in religions of the

2 The Dead Sea Scrolls is a collection of ancient literary texts written on parchment and papyrus rolls and frag-ments that were found in the Qumran caves in the Judean desert (Israel/Palestinian Authority). The texts, written between the 3rd century BCE and the 1st century CE, are mostly Hebrew, and some are also Aramaic and Greek. About 80% of the texts concern social rules, explanation of the bible, praise, and other content, while 20% are biblical texts. 3 According to Noll (2013) historians use different labels for the ancient governments (e.g., chiefdom, city-state), due to several factors such as, for example, size. Kingdom territories were dependent on the ability of kings to collect tax from the population, and this ability varied among kings and also within a single king’s regnal period. These varying tax collection systems led to blurred borders between kingdoms.


Introduction 7 ׀

experience as well, most frequently in the context of divinity, and to an even greater extent when the lover is God. The volitionality of ’hb has further consequence to the transitivity of ’hb-events in BH. In linguistic theorising, emotion and mental verbs are in general (unless causative as, for example, the verbs irritate/please) non-prototypical transitive, or distant from prototypical tran-sitive events. Prototypical transitive events consist of a volitional, sentient, instigating, unaf-fected agent and an affected patient. An obvious example is a kill-event in which the killer is the agent and the one who is killed the patient. Love/affection-events are usually not associated with a volitional, unaffected agent, nor with an affected patient; rather, the lover is an experi-encer (to some extent affected her/himself) and the beloved is a theme or stimulus. Affected-ness of the theme may occur, but it can be seen as a side effect, i.e., an action of the experiencer toward the theme that is driven by the experience. The volitionality in the use of ’hb suggests that transitivity may to some extent be part of the meaning, at least in some contexts. Consequently, ’hb as an emotive-event may be closer to prototypical transitive events that emotive-events usually are. This problem is further discussed in Chapter 5. 1.3 Contribution of the present thesis Similarly to Bosman (2011), the present thesis expands the scope of investigation of ’hb to include the entire corpus of its usage, regardless of specific themes and text types. At the same time, this study continues the line of social-relational perspective that was brought out in dif-ferent ways in other studies, and emerges solely from the use of ’hb in the Hebrew Bible. The present thesis further elaborates on this and offers a sociocultural interpretation. It, thereby, extends beyond the lexical level and concentrates also on the motivation underlying the specific use of the lexeme and its association with socialness or social interaction. The combination of a cognitive-linguistic, usage-based approach with sociocultural focus contributes to a more inclusive understanding of ’hb, with implications for the broader under-standing of emotions in BH in general. Referring to BH as a form of language use, enables a broader examination that is independent of specific biblical themes. The themes, by all means relevant to the investigation, are revealed through the investigation but they do not lead it. The present thesis takes a bottom-up approach that offers a comprehensive account of the use of ’hb at the linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural levels. The contribution of the current thesis is made in two main ways. First, the investigation contributes to the general field of emotions in language, and, in particular, to the conceptuali-sation of love. The omnipresence of ’hb in the biblical contexts indicates the complexity un-derlying this lexeme and its significance to ancient Israelite culture. Second, the investigation contributes to a better understanding of ’hb in the biblical texts, both as a central theme (mostly in human-divine relationship) and as a member of the category of emotion. In particular, the thesis offers a thorough and detailed study on the association between ’hb as an emotion and the sociocultural order of ancient Israel as it is reflected in the Hebrew Bible. The different biblical themes in which this lexeme is involved are all relevant components of a whole (i.e.,

the comprehensive account offered here), but each of them on its own is not sufficient for the understanding of it. 1.4 Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible Biblical Hebrew is a (literary) written form of Ancient Hebrew, a Semitic language within the Northwest Semitic group of the Afro-Asian family. Ancient Hebrew was the language of the peoples of Israel and Judah, spoken in the Near East, mainly in the ancient Canaan (current Israel and Palestinian Authority), during the first millennium BCE. BH is the language of the Hebrew Bible (tanakh), the canonical Jewish scripture, which was written in different periods during the first millennium BCE. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of religious and other texts organised in three main parts – tôrâ ‘law’, nəbî’îm ‘prophets’, kətûbîm ‘writings’, each of which contains books of varying sizes. The collection consists of different types of text such as narrative and prescriptive/instructive, with different contents, such as genealogies, legisla-tion, oracles, wisdom, and poetry, written by unknown authors, and edited and re-edited by subsequent editors, for different audiences, between the 8th and the 3rd centuries BCE. The Hebrew Bible contains 425,185 words (source: Accordance, OakTree Software, Inc.). A linguistic investigation based on the collection of texts alone is obviously not optimal and might leave many questions unanswered. With non-existing documentation of spoken Ancient Hebrew from the same period, the Hebrew Bible is the main, and largest available corpus of the ancient language, and is used as such in the present thesis. In addition to the biblical mate-rials, there exists some epigraphic sources (many in pre-biblical Hebrew), consisting of short fragments of one or more words, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, of which about 20% are biblical texts written in Qumran Hebrew.2 The religious, and other texts of the Hebrew Bible are parts of the ancient Israelite culture in which they were written. The culture of ancient Israel and Judah was one of several different cultures that together formed the Canaanite culture in the land of Canaan. Like other cultures in the ancient Near East, Canaanite culture was predominantly rural agrarian, consisting mainly of farmers or shepherds. According to Noll (2013), who describes the culture of Israel and Judah within one category of all the Canaanite cultures, the common political system in the ancient cultures was kingdom, structurally based on patron-client relationships at different levels, from kings to shepherds and herders.3 In this relationship, patrons, usually men, pro-vided protection to the people, who, in turn, had to work for or pay tax to the patrons. The patron-client structure, Noll (2013) notes, was also the common pattern in religions of the

2 The Dead Sea Scrolls is a collection of ancient literary texts written on parchment and papyrus rolls and frag-ments that were found in the Qumran caves in the Judean desert (Israel/Palestinian Authority). The texts, written between the 3rd century BCE and the 1st century CE, are mostly Hebrew, and some are also Aramaic and Greek. About 80% of the texts concern social rules, explanation of the bible, praise, and other content, while 20% are biblical texts. 3 According to Noll (2013) historians use different labels for the ancient governments (e.g., chiefdom, city-state), due to several factors such as, for example, size. Kingdom territories were dependent on the ability of kings to collect tax from the population, and this ability varied among kings and also within a single king’s regnal period. These varying tax collection systems led to blurred borders between kingdoms.


Chapter 1 ׀ 8

ancient Near East. A patron not only guided and protected his clients, but he also “claimed to possess guidance and protection of a god who has chosen him for this task” (Noll, 2013: 186). Politics and religion thus shared the same patron-client structure and were, in fact, intertwined. This structure further involved a mutual moral bond between gods and kings, which was based on prescribed morality by the divine. The tôrâ ‘law’ in the Hebrew Bible is an example of such a prescribed code of conduct. The patron-client structure of the ancient Canaanite cultures, like that of Israel and Judah, involved mastery on the side of patrons, dependency and loyalty on the side of clients, and a mutual commitment within the patron-client relationship. A core ele-ment of this structure was hierarchy, which existed at all levels, from god-king to landlord-servant. Although the source of knowledge about the ancient culture is not limited to the texts – it can be accessed through research in different disciplines, e.g., archaeology, history – ancient texts contain or imply information about different cultural aspects. In addition, the specific forms of language use in the different texts form a rich source of linguistic and metalinguistic information. The present thesis is based on the occurrences of ’hb throughout the biblical texts, a dataset of 252 clauses, of which the broader biblical contexts are considered as well. 1.5 Structure of the thesis Chapter 2, following the present introduction, discusses general approaches to emotion in cog-nitive linguistics and presents analytical concepts that are considered fundamental to concep-tualisation and language use in general. A central concept in this regard is imagery (see Lan-gacker 1991). A primary discussion in this chapter concerns the universal vs. cultural source of emotion conceptualisation. Universal experience refers to basic, primary, physical human experience which is based on the interaction of the human body with its environment. Exam-ples are the verticality of the human body and gravitation that shape our experience and per-spectives. Cultural experience is specific to a given culture and may consist of geographical, economic, social, religious, or cultic aspects. It will be argued, following Kövecses & Palmer (1999), that the two are not necessarily contradictory as conceptual sources, rather they are both necessary for conceptualisation and coexist in cognition. Chapter 3 presents an overview of studies on emotions in the Hebrew Bible. In the first part, the adequacy of emotion as a basic category in the Hebrew bible is examined, followed by a presentation and discussion of studies on specific emotions. The second part of the chapter concentrates specifically on earlier studies on ’hb. Chapter 4 presents a detailed description of the use of ’hb in BH. The chapter opens with the general distribution of the lexeme with attention to linguistic as well as metalinguistic aspects, such as word classes, gender and animacy of participants, and biblical contexts. The chapter proceeds with the main patterns in the use of ’hb, namely the gender-based hierarchy and se-mantic asymmetry that were mentioned above. These patterns are subsequently examined within nine cultural domains, which constitute the general contexts of ’hb in the biblical texts. The cultural domains are: Divinity, Kinship, Adultery, Romance, Social Relations, Politics, Conduct/Activity, Inanimate Concrete Objects, and Inanimate Abstract Objects. While ’hb is not equally distributed among these domains - most frequently occurring in the domain of

Divinity - the five interpersonal domains together contain more occurrences of the lexeme than in Divinity alone. Chapter 4 provides a clear picture of both the distribution and the social-hierarchical use of ’hb. Elaborating on the problem of volitionality, Chapter 5 is dedicated to the entailed semantic transitivity in the use of ’hb and its relation to prototypical transitivity. After specifying the social character of ’hb in Chapters 4 and elaborating on the degree of semantic transitivity in its use in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 offers an account based on the sociocul-tural structure of ancient Israel. The centrality of the kinship system in the ancient Israelite culture, it is argued, serves as the conceptual source of the use of ’hb in all its occurrences, and provides an explanation of the polysemy. Furthermore, it is shown how kinship as a conceptual source is responsible also for the hierarchical character of ’hb. Finally, Chapter 6 clearly shows how ’hb plays a role in the sociocultural order of ancient Israel as this is reflected from the texts. Chapter 7 presents a comparison between ’hb and the lexemes of five other concepts in BH, namely sadness, eyesight, hearing, hitting/striking, and killing. The five represent the catego-ries of emotion, sensory perception, powerful contact, and destruction (respectively). Applying the method of hierarchical agglomerating cluster analysis, the comparison is based on a set of 37 features, such as cultural domain, gender/animacy, and volition, and their frequency in the use of the different lexemes. For instance, all the lexemes were annotated for the frequency of animacy (e.g., divine, inanimate) and the gender of participants in their use or the frequency of their occurrence in the different cultural domains. The similarities and differences between the lexemes are indicated by a clustering structure in which similarities and differences are clearly evident in the emerged clusters and the distances between them. The application of this method in the present study is sheer exploratory and meant to provide a broader perspective to the examination of ’hb rather than statistical-significant results. Chapter 8 presents a case study of another, affection-related concept in BH, namely ḥen ‘favour’, as used in the idiomatic construction māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênê ‘find favour in one’s eyes’. Similarly to the use of ’hb, the use of this construction in BH is closely related to social order and, in particular, social hierarchy. In contrast to the former, however, the latter is inherently hierarchical in BH, based on an ancient cultural conception of ḥen ‘favour’ as a trait given to kings by gods. The examination of ḥen ‘favour’ provides support to the present thesis by pre-senting a distinct case of the involvement of emotions in the sociocultural life and structure of ancient Israel, and of the role emotions play in it. Chapter 9 presents some conclusions. The translation of the cited biblical texts are the thesis author’s.


Introduction 9 ׀

ancient Near East. A patron not only guided and protected his clients, but he also “claimed to possess guidance and protection of a god who has chosen him for this task” (Noll, 2013: 186). Politics and religion thus shared the same patron-client structure and were, in fact, intertwined. This structure further involved a mutual moral bond between gods and kings, which was based on prescribed morality by the divine. The tôrâ ‘law’ in the Hebrew Bible is an example of such a prescribed code of conduct. The patron-client structure of the ancient Canaanite cultures, like that of Israel and Judah, involved mastery on the side of patrons, dependency and loyalty on the side of clients, and a mutual commitment within the patron-client relationship. A core ele-ment of this structure was hierarchy, which existed at all levels, from god-king to landlord-servant. Although the source of knowledge about the ancient culture is not limited to the texts – it can be accessed through research in different disciplines, e.g., archaeology, history – ancient texts contain or imply information about different cultural aspects. In addition, the specific forms of language use in the different texts form a rich source of linguistic and metalinguistic information. The present thesis is based on the occurrences of ’hb throughout the biblical texts, a dataset of 252 clauses, of which the broader biblical contexts are considered as well. 1.5 Structure of the thesis Chapter 2, following the present introduction, discusses general approaches to emotion in cog-nitive linguistics and presents analytical concepts that are considered fundamental to concep-tualisation and language use in general. A central concept in this regard is imagery (see Lan-gacker 1991). A primary discussion in this chapter concerns the universal vs. cultural source of emotion conceptualisation. Universal experience refers to basic, primary, physical human experience which is based on the interaction of the human body with its environment. Exam-ples are the verticality of the human body and gravitation that shape our experience and per-spectives. Cultural experience is specific to a given culture and may consist of geographical, economic, social, religious, or cultic aspects. It will be argued, following Kövecses & Palmer (1999), that the two are not necessarily contradictory as conceptual sources, rather they are both necessary for conceptualisation and coexist in cognition. Chapter 3 presents an overview of studies on emotions in the Hebrew Bible. In the first part, the adequacy of emotion as a basic category in the Hebrew bible is examined, followed by a presentation and discussion of studies on specific emotions. The second part of the chapter concentrates specifically on earlier studies on ’hb. Chapter 4 presents a detailed description of the use of ’hb in BH. The chapter opens with the general distribution of the lexeme with attention to linguistic as well as metalinguistic aspects, such as word classes, gender and animacy of participants, and biblical contexts. The chapter proceeds with the main patterns in the use of ’hb, namely the gender-based hierarchy and se-mantic asymmetry that were mentioned above. These patterns are subsequently examined within nine cultural domains, which constitute the general contexts of ’hb in the biblical texts. The cultural domains are: Divinity, Kinship, Adultery, Romance, Social Relations, Politics, Conduct/Activity, Inanimate Concrete Objects, and Inanimate Abstract Objects. While ’hb is not equally distributed among these domains - most frequently occurring in the domain of

Divinity - the five interpersonal domains together contain more occurrences of the lexeme than in Divinity alone. Chapter 4 provides a clear picture of both the distribution and the social-hierarchical use of ’hb. Elaborating on the problem of volitionality, Chapter 5 is dedicated to the entailed semantic transitivity in the use of ’hb and its relation to prototypical transitivity. After specifying the social character of ’hb in Chapters 4 and elaborating on the degree of semantic transitivity in its use in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 offers an account based on the sociocul-tural structure of ancient Israel. The centrality of the kinship system in the ancient Israelite culture, it is argued, serves as the conceptual source of the use of ’hb in all its occurrences, and provides an explanation of the polysemy. Furthermore, it is shown how kinship as a conceptual source is responsible also for the hierarchical character of ’hb. Finally, Chapter 6 clearly shows how ’hb plays a role in the sociocultural order of ancient Israel as this is reflected from the texts. Chapter 7 presents a comparison between ’hb and the lexemes of five other concepts in BH, namely sadness, eyesight, hearing, hitting/striking, and killing. The five represent the catego-ries of emotion, sensory perception, powerful contact, and destruction (respectively). Applying the method of hierarchical agglomerating cluster analysis, the comparison is based on a set of 37 features, such as cultural domain, gender/animacy, and volition, and their frequency in the use of the different lexemes. For instance, all the lexemes were annotated for the frequency of animacy (e.g., divine, inanimate) and the gender of participants in their use or the frequency of their occurrence in the different cultural domains. The similarities and differences between the lexemes are indicated by a clustering structure in which similarities and differences are clearly evident in the emerged clusters and the distances between them. The application of this method in the present study is sheer exploratory and meant to provide a broader perspective to the examination of ’hb rather than statistical-significant results. Chapter 8 presents a case study of another, affection-related concept in BH, namely ḥen ‘favour’, as used in the idiomatic construction māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênê ‘find favour in one’s eyes’. Similarly to the use of ’hb, the use of this construction in BH is closely related to social order and, in particular, social hierarchy. In contrast to the former, however, the latter is inherently hierarchical in BH, based on an ancient cultural conception of ḥen ‘favour’ as a trait given to kings by gods. The examination of ḥen ‘favour’ provides support to the present thesis by pre-senting a distinct case of the involvement of emotions in the sociocultural life and structure of ancient Israel, and of the role emotions play in it. Chapter 9 presents some conclusions. The translation of the cited biblical texts are the thesis author’s.


Chapter 2. Meaning and conceptualisation of emotion in language 2.1 Introduction The complexity of emotional experience has intrigued many scholars in their pursuit to under-stand the meaning and conceptualisation of emotions in language, and the different ways in which emotion and language interact with each other (see, for example, Foolen 2012; Majid 2012 for overviews). The particular words and constructions that are used to talk about emo-tions can reveal underlying associated concepts in our cognition that influence the conceptual-isation of emotion. Conceptualisation is the cognitive representation, such as thought and ex-perience, underlying word meaning. Obviously this is not exclusive to emotion, but concerns language use in general. Following a basic assumption in cognitive linguistics, according to which language interacts with thought and experience, everything we express with words is linked to non-linguistic concepts in our (cognitive) experience. Cognitive conceptualisation and linguistic meaning are, thus, strongly connected. Furthermore, meaning is complex and context-dependent, in terms of both grammar and discourse. This approach to meaning greatly differs from earlier theories according to which meaning is autonomous and absolute (see Geeraerts 2010 for a comprehensive overview of the approaches to meaning in linguistics). The construction [X is in love with Y] can illustrate the interaction between words and experi-ence. This construction not only expresses and describes an emotional state of X in relation to Y, but also implies a general conceptualisation of containment or location (‘in’), attributed to love, in which X and Y are together (‘with’), at least from the perspective of X. Due to the entrenchment and conventionalisation of this construction in the English language, the concep-tualisation of love as container or location is no longer activated in speakers’ cognition; rather, the construction implies an underlying, older, conceptual link between love and the concepts of containment or location. Nevertheless, the construction clearly expresses some kind of af-finity or attraction that X experiences in relation to Y and that unites the two in some way. The emotional lexicon is a rich source from which the complexity of meaning and experience can be understood. The metaphoric-metonymic example ‘she is boiling with anger’ illustrates one aspect of this complexity. This construction reflects the physical sensation that is often experienced in situations of anger, namely an increase in body heat. Anger in this construction is clearly a physical reaction to a (social) stimulus (i.e., a cause), which accompanies the expe-riencer (‘she’). But this construction also implies some kind of evaluation (appraisal) of the stimulus by the experiencer, namely the realisation that the stimulus is undesirable or nega-tively connoted. This evaluation further leads to the reaction. Hence, anger, as expressed by this example, involves a precedent event, a physical experience, and a cognitive activity. Figurative conceptualisation, such as the metaphor/metonym above, is quite common cross-linguistically and is often used for the more abstract concepts, such as emotion. The use of figurative language facilitates access to such concepts by describing them in more concrete terms. At the same time, the use of figurative language increases expressiveness in communi-cation. It has been found that speakers often tend to increase expressiveness when communi-cating about topics in which sentiments or attitudes are involved. In the English expression ‘mad about you’, for example, love or attraction is intensified by the use of a term from the


Chapter 2. Meaning and conceptualisation of emotion in language 2.1 Introduction The complexity of emotional experience has intrigued many scholars in their pursuit to under-stand the meaning and conceptualisation of emotions in language, and the different ways in which emotion and language interact with each other (see, for example, Foolen 2012; Majid 2012 for overviews). The particular words and constructions that are used to talk about emo-tions can reveal underlying associated concepts in our cognition that influence the conceptual-isation of emotion. Conceptualisation is the cognitive representation, such as thought and ex-perience, underlying word meaning. Obviously this is not exclusive to emotion, but concerns language use in general. Following a basic assumption in cognitive linguistics, according to which language interacts with thought and experience, everything we express with words is linked to non-linguistic concepts in our (cognitive) experience. Cognitive conceptualisation and linguistic meaning are, thus, strongly connected. Furthermore, meaning is complex and context-dependent, in terms of both grammar and discourse. This approach to meaning greatly differs from earlier theories according to which meaning is autonomous and absolute (see Geeraerts 2010 for a comprehensive overview of the approaches to meaning in linguistics). The construction [X is in love with Y] can illustrate the interaction between words and experi-ence. This construction not only expresses and describes an emotional state of X in relation to Y, but also implies a general conceptualisation of containment or location (‘in’), attributed to love, in which X and Y are together (‘with’), at least from the perspective of X. Due to the entrenchment and conventionalisation of this construction in the English language, the concep-tualisation of love as container or location is no longer activated in speakers’ cognition; rather, the construction implies an underlying, older, conceptual link between love and the concepts of containment or location. Nevertheless, the construction clearly expresses some kind of af-finity or attraction that X experiences in relation to Y and that unites the two in some way. The emotional lexicon is a rich source from which the complexity of meaning and experience can be understood. The metaphoric-metonymic example ‘she is boiling with anger’ illustrates one aspect of this complexity. This construction reflects the physical sensation that is often experienced in situations of anger, namely an increase in body heat. Anger in this construction is clearly a physical reaction to a (social) stimulus (i.e., a cause), which accompanies the expe-riencer (‘she’). But this construction also implies some kind of evaluation (appraisal) of the stimulus by the experiencer, namely the realisation that the stimulus is undesirable or nega-tively connoted. This evaluation further leads to the reaction. Hence, anger, as expressed by this example, involves a precedent event, a physical experience, and a cognitive activity. Figurative conceptualisation, such as the metaphor/metonym above, is quite common cross-linguistically and is often used for the more abstract concepts, such as emotion. The use of figurative language facilitates access to such concepts by describing them in more concrete terms. At the same time, the use of figurative language increases expressiveness in communi-cation. It has been found that speakers often tend to increase expressiveness when communi-cating about topics in which sentiments or attitudes are involved. In the English expression ‘mad about you’, for example, love or attraction is intensified by the use of a term from the


Chapter 2 ׀ 12

semantic field of insanity, as a state of losing control (see, for example, Jing-Schmidt 2007; Vardi 2015 on intensification of emotions). Emotions inherently involve sentiments and atti-tudes and the use of figurative language to increase expressiveness in this semantic category is therefore not odd (see Foolen 2016 for the expressive function of language). The relevance of figurative language, and particularly conceptual metaphors and metonymies, to meaning and conceptualisation is the topic of 2.3.2. Figurative language is, however, not the only means through which emotion is conceptualised in language. The following section introduces some relevant common analytical concepts in the study of emotion and language. 2.2 Analytical concepts 2.2.1 Morpho-syntactic and lexical aspects of meaning and conceptualisation The linguistic context of emotion words consists of word classes (e.g. noun, verb, adjective), verb valency (i.e. the number of arguments a verb has in a construction and the grammatical relations between the verb and the arguments), other collocated components such as preposi-tions, and the type of construction in which the emotion word occurs (e.g. transitive, impera-tive). As for word classes, languages vary in the way they denote the more temporal aspects of emotion. In Hebrew for example, the temporality of emotions is prototypically expressed by verbs, while other languages, such as English and Dutch, use mostly adjectives (with auxiliary verbs), as in (1). (1) hu ka‘as he anger.3SGM.PS ‘He was angry’ Wierzbicka (2009) argues that the use of adjectives in some languages, in contrast to the use of verbs in others, reflects the conceptualisation of emotions as states in the former and as activities in the latter. Applying this to Hebrew expressions such as that in (1) would perhaps make it possible to argue that being in a state of anger is more typically conceptualised in Hebrew as a process rather than as a state. Such a claim requires further examination than simply considering the predominant use of verbs in the articulation of emotion in Hebrew, as the predominance of verbs does not occur exclusively with emotion in Hebrew. In addition, even within one language the use of verbs and adjectives can vary with different emotions, as the Dutch examples in (2) show. (2) a. Ze was bang voor de persoon die jarenlang van haar hield she was afraid to/for the person who years-long of her loved ‘She was afraid of the person who had loved her for years.’ b. Ze vreesde de terugkeer van haar oude vriend ‘She feared the return of her old friend.’ ‘She feared the return of her old friend.’

Verbs of emotion are further relevant to other aspects of emotional conceptualisation, such as causality, and volition. A general perception among scholars is that different expressions of emotion often entail a reaction to a stimulus (i.e., antecedent). The metaphoric-metonymic ex-pression ‘she is boiling with anger’ mentioned above is an illustration thereof. This perception, it seems, is also reflected in a general approach in semantic theories wherein the semantic roles of the arguments of emotion verbs (i.e., subject and object) are labelled ‘experiencer’ and ‘stim-ulus’/‘theme’ (respectively). Such semantic roles deviate from the prototypical roles of transi-tive verb arguments, namely ‘agent’ and ‘patient’. According to this theoretical approach, emo-tion verbs are prototypically seen as semantically intransitive, or at least less representative of transitivity than verbs of action and other semantic categories. Semantic transitivity focuses on the semantic functions of verb arguments that provide information about, for example, who/what does what to whom/what, or who perceives whom/what, regardless of the syntactic relations the arguments have with verbs, i.e., subject and (in)direct object. A prototypical tran-sitive event with an agent and a patient is prototypically encoded by a syntactic transitive clause, where the agent is the clause’s subject and the patient is the clause’s direct object. The distance of emotion verbs from prototypical semantic transitivity is mainly based on the infrequent presence of properties such as volition, causality, control, activeness, and instigation on the subject (experiencer) of emotion verbs. These are basic characteristics of agentivity and hence transitivity (see Langacker 1991; Jackendof 1987; Givón 2001). And yet, some emotion verbs may be causal as, for example, ‘please’ and ‘irritate’, and assign the semantic roles ‘agent’ and ‘experiencer’ to their subject and object (respectively) (see Croft 1991, 1994; Mal-chukov 2005). The consequence of this assignment of semantic roles is that emotions such as ‘please’ and ‘irritate’, when attributed to the subject, are semantically closer to prototypical transitive verbs such as ‘hit’ or ‘break’ than to the less prototypical perception and emotion verbs such as ‘see’ or ‘love’. The question is whether such a general theory can apply to lan-guages other than English, and what is the role of cultural differences in its application. The relevance of volition, agentivity, and transitivity to the use of ’hb ‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew will be examined in later chapters, especially in Chapter 5. Finally, prepositions collocated with emotion words provide information on the relations between emotion language and conceptualisation. The use of particular prepositional colloca-tions to speak about emotions may reveal some underlying patterns of conceptualisation. An example is the Israeli Hebrew verb mekane ‘is jealous’/‘envies’ in (3), the meaning of which alternates when it is collocated with different prepositions. (3) a. hu mekane’ ba-’ax ʃelo he jealous.SGM.P in.DEF-brother GEN.3SGM ‘He envies/is jealous of his brother.’ b. hu mekane’ le-’i ʃto he jealous.SGM.P to-wife.GEN.3GN ‘He is jealous (regarding his wife).’


Meaning and conceptualisation of emotion in language 13 ׀

semantic field of insanity, as a state of losing control (see, for example, Jing-Schmidt 2007; Vardi 2015 on intensification of emotions). Emotions inherently involve sentiments and atti-tudes and the use of figurative language to increase expressiveness in this semantic category is therefore not odd (see Foolen 2016 for the expressive function of language). The relevance of figurative language, and particularly conceptual metaphors and metonymies, to meaning and conceptualisation is the topic of 2.3.2. Figurative language is, however, not the only means through which emotion is conceptualised in language. The following section introduces some relevant common analytical concepts in the study of emotion and language. 2.2 Analytical concepts 2.2.1 Morpho-syntactic and lexical aspects of meaning and conceptualisation The linguistic context of emotion words consists of word classes (e.g. noun, verb, adjective), verb valency (i.e. the number of arguments a verb has in a construction and the grammatical relations between the verb and the arguments), other collocated components such as preposi-tions, and the type of construction in which the emotion word occurs (e.g. transitive, impera-tive). As for word classes, languages vary in the way they denote the more temporal aspects of emotion. In Hebrew for example, the temporality of emotions is prototypically expressed by verbs, while other languages, such as English and Dutch, use mostly adjectives (with auxiliary verbs), as in (1). (1) hu ka‘as he anger.3SGM.PS ‘He was angry’ Wierzbicka (2009) argues that the use of adjectives in some languages, in contrast to the use of verbs in others, reflects the conceptualisation of emotions as states in the former and as activities in the latter. Applying this to Hebrew expressions such as that in (1) would perhaps make it possible to argue that being in a state of anger is more typically conceptualised in Hebrew as a process rather than as a state. Such a claim requires further examination than simply considering the predominant use of verbs in the articulation of emotion in Hebrew, as the predominance of verbs does not occur exclusively with emotion in Hebrew. In addition, even within one language the use of verbs and adjectives can vary with different emotions, as the Dutch examples in (2) show. (2) a. Ze was bang voor de persoon die jarenlang van haar hield she was afraid to/for the person who years-long of her loved ‘She was afraid of the person who had loved her for years.’ b. Ze vreesde de terugkeer van haar oude vriend ‘She feared the return of her old friend.’ ‘She feared the return of her old friend.’

Verbs of emotion are further relevant to other aspects of emotional conceptualisation, such as causality, and volition. A general perception among scholars is that different expressions of emotion often entail a reaction to a stimulus (i.e., antecedent). The metaphoric-metonymic ex-pression ‘she is boiling with anger’ mentioned above is an illustration thereof. This perception, it seems, is also reflected in a general approach in semantic theories wherein the semantic roles of the arguments of emotion verbs (i.e., subject and object) are labelled ‘experiencer’ and ‘stim-ulus’/‘theme’ (respectively). Such semantic roles deviate from the prototypical roles of transi-tive verb arguments, namely ‘agent’ and ‘patient’. According to this theoretical approach, emo-tion verbs are prototypically seen as semantically intransitive, or at least less representative of transitivity than verbs of action and other semantic categories. Semantic transitivity focuses on the semantic functions of verb arguments that provide information about, for example, who/what does what to whom/what, or who perceives whom/what, regardless of the syntactic relations the arguments have with verbs, i.e., subject and (in)direct object. A prototypical tran-sitive event with an agent and a patient is prototypically encoded by a syntactic transitive clause, where the agent is the clause’s subject and the patient is the clause’s direct object. The distance of emotion verbs from prototypical semantic transitivity is mainly based on the infrequent presence of properties such as volition, causality, control, activeness, and instigation on the subject (experiencer) of emotion verbs. These are basic characteristics of agentivity and hence transitivity (see Langacker 1991; Jackendof 1987; Givón 2001). And yet, some emotion verbs may be causal as, for example, ‘please’ and ‘irritate’, and assign the semantic roles ‘agent’ and ‘experiencer’ to their subject and object (respectively) (see Croft 1991, 1994; Mal-chukov 2005). The consequence of this assignment of semantic roles is that emotions such as ‘please’ and ‘irritate’, when attributed to the subject, are semantically closer to prototypical transitive verbs such as ‘hit’ or ‘break’ than to the less prototypical perception and emotion verbs such as ‘see’ or ‘love’. The question is whether such a general theory can apply to lan-guages other than English, and what is the role of cultural differences in its application. The relevance of volition, agentivity, and transitivity to the use of ’hb ‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew will be examined in later chapters, especially in Chapter 5. Finally, prepositions collocated with emotion words provide information on the relations between emotion language and conceptualisation. The use of particular prepositional colloca-tions to speak about emotions may reveal some underlying patterns of conceptualisation. An example is the Israeli Hebrew verb mekane ‘is jealous’/‘envies’ in (3), the meaning of which alternates when it is collocated with different prepositions. (3) a. hu mekane’ ba-’ax ʃelo he jealous.SGM.P in.DEF-brother GEN.3SGM ‘He envies/is jealous of his brother.’ b. hu mekane’ le-’i ʃto he jealous.SGM.P to-wife.GEN.3GN ‘He is jealous (regarding his wife).’


Chapter 2 ׀ 14

As these examples show, envy/jealousy based on another’s possessions, quality, achievements, etc. is expressed by a collocation with the preposition be- ‘in’, whereas jealousy based on the interest of one’s spouse (or friend) in another person is expressed by a collocation with le- ‘to’/‘for’. Another example that was already mentioned is the English expression ‘to be in love with’, which implies the conceptualisation of romantic love as a location or container in which the two lovers are placed together. In Dutch the lover is verliefd op ‘in a state of love on’ the beloved, while in Israeli Hebrew the lover is me’ohav be- ‘in a state of love in’ the beloved. Radden (1998) argued that different English prepositional phrases of emotions reflect dif-ferent qualities and different types of causality based on the prepositions that are used, i.e., ‘in’, ‘with’, ‘for’, and ‘out of’. According to him, prepositional phrases with ‘in’ reflect the concept of containment and encode intense emotions, which are either a process or an uncontrolled action, as in (4a). In contrast, prepositional phrases that include ‘with’ reflect the concept of companionship and encode less intense or attendant emotions, which are either processes, states, or vocalisation, as in (4b). (4) a. She pursed her lips in vexation. (Radden 1998: 278) b. She trembled with fear. (Radden 1998: 275) Mostovaja (1998) discusses Russian prepositional constructions of emotions, mainly from Rus-sian literature, that include the preposition v ‘in’/‘into’ with emotive noun phrases, as in (5).4 (5) a. Babuška pogružalas’ v unynie Grandma plunge/sank into dismay-ACC ([Dostoevsky] Mostovaja 1998: 301, uppercase of gloss in the source). b. *On progruzilsja v vozmuščenie He plunged/sank into indignation-ACC (Mostovaja 1998: 305, uppercase of gloss in the source) c. On prišel v otčajanie He came into despair-ACC (Mostovaja 1998: 313, uppercase of gloss in the source) d. *Prijti v sčast’e To come into happiness (Mostivaja 1998: 316, uppercase of gloss in the source)

e. On vpal v paniku He fell into panic-ACC (Mostovaja 1998: 325, uppercase of gloss in the source)

4 The asterisk symbol at (5b, d, f) marks unconventional phrases, which may be grammatically correct but are perceived as ill-formed and are not, or hardly, used.

f. *On vpal v strax He fell into fear-ACC (Mostovaja 1998: 325, uppercase of gloss in the source) Mostovaja argues that whereas the preposition v ‘into’ implies a general conception of contain-ment attributed to the collocated emotions, the different verbs that are used in the constructions reflect the semantic constraints on these emotions. The examples (5)a–b show that ‘plunge/sink into regret’ is an acceptable construction, while ‘plunge/sink into indignation’ is not. This dif-ference is based on the active manifestation of the emotion. Hence, ‘plunge/sink’ can only be used with non-actively manifested emotional states. Similarly, the degree of emotional inten-sity dictates which emotions may be placed in the prepositional phrase when the verb is ‘come’, in (5c–d). It is possible to say ‘come into despair’ but not ‘come into happiness’ because the former is considered intense but the latter less so. In (5e–f), the evaluation of emotions is the semantic constraint that determines whether or not an emotional term can be used with the verb ‘fall’ in the prepositional phrase. To say that one ‘falls into panic’ is possible, but not that one ‘falls into fear’, because ‘fall’ can only be used with emotions which are generally disapproved of, such as panic, in Russian culture. 2.2.2 Polysemy and prototypicality One of the problems facing scholars who focus on semantics is polysemy. The general ap-proach to polysemy in the present thesis is based on the use of (emotion) words within their specific contexts. Accordingly, meaning is seen to be context-related and polysemy develops through the use of words in different contexts (see Taylor 2012: 219–20 on the definition of polysemy). In cognitive linguistics, polysemy is commonly approached with prototype theory and related theories. Thus, a word-polysemy can be examined and analysed as a category with prototypical and peripheral meanings. Prototype theory was developed by Eleanor Rosch (1978 [overview]) within the research domain of cognitive psychology to address the structure of categories. Categorisation is a cog-nitive mechanism, essential to the processing of sensory perceived environmental information, in humans and other animals. In human cognition, categorisation is the organisation of such information on the basis of different criteria, such as function, shape, and specific attributes. Rosch (1978: 28) distinguished between two basic principles of categorisation in human cog-nition: (I) the principle of cognitive economy, and (II) the principle of perceived world struc-ture,and defined them as follows:

The first has to do with the function of category systems and asserts that the task of category systems is to provide maximum information with the least cognitive effort; the second has to do with the structure of the information so provided and asserts that the perceived world comes as structured information rather than arbi-trary or unpredictable attributes.



As these examples show, envy/jealousy based on another’s possessions, quality, achievements, etc. is expressed by a collocation with the preposition be- ‘in’, whereas jealousy based on the interest of one’s spouse (or friend) in another person is expressed by a collocation with le- ‘to’/‘for’. Another example that was already mentioned is the English expression ‘to be in love with’, which implies the conceptualisation of romantic love as a location or container in which the two lovers are placed together. In Dutch the lover is verliefd op ‘in a state of love on’ the beloved, while in Israeli Hebrew the lover is me’ohav be- ‘in a state of love in’ the beloved. Radden (1998) argued that different English prepositional phrases of emotions reflect dif-ferent qualities and different types of causality based on the prepositions that are used, i.e., ‘in’, ‘with’, ‘for’, and ‘out of’. According to him, prepositional phrases with ‘in’ reflect the concept of containment and encode intense emotions, which are either a process or an uncontrolled action, as in (4a). In contrast, prepositional phrases that include ‘with’ reflect the concept of companionship and encode less intense or attendant emotions, which are either processes, states, or vocalisation, as in (4b). (4) a. She pursed her lips in vexation. (Radden 1998: 278) b. She trembled with fear. (Radden 1998: 275) Mostovaja (1998) discusses Russian prepositional constructions of emotions, mainly from Rus-sian literature, that include the preposition v ‘in’/‘into’ with emotive noun phrases, as in (5).4 (5) a. Babuška pogružalas’ v unynie Grandma plunge/sank into dismay-ACC ([Dostoevsky] Mostovaja 1998: 301, uppercase of gloss in the source). b. *On progruzilsja v vozmuščenie He plunged/sank into indignation-ACC (Mostovaja 1998: 305, uppercase of gloss in the source) c. On prišel v otčajanie He came into despair-ACC (Mostovaja 1998: 313, uppercase of gloss in the source) d. *Prijti v sčast’e To come into happiness (Mostivaja 1998: 316, uppercase of gloss in the source)

e. On vpal v paniku He fell into panic-ACC (Mostovaja 1998: 325, uppercase of gloss in the source)

4 The asterisk symbol at (5b, d, f) marks unconventional phrases, which may be grammatically correct but are perceived as ill-formed and are not, or hardly, used.

f. *On vpal v strax He fell into fear-ACC (Mostovaja 1998: 325, uppercase of gloss in the source) Mostovaja argues that whereas the preposition v ‘into’ implies a general conception of contain-ment attributed to the collocated emotions, the different verbs that are used in the constructions reflect the semantic constraints on these emotions. The examples (5)a–b show that ‘plunge/sink into regret’ is an acceptable construction, while ‘plunge/sink into indignation’ is not. This dif-ference is based on the active manifestation of the emotion. Hence, ‘plunge/sink’ can only be used with non-actively manifested emotional states. Similarly, the degree of emotional inten-sity dictates which emotions may be placed in the prepositional phrase when the verb is ‘come’, in (5c–d). It is possible to say ‘come into despair’ but not ‘come into happiness’ because the former is considered intense but the latter less so. In (5e–f), the evaluation of emotions is the semantic constraint that determines whether or not an emotional term can be used with the verb ‘fall’ in the prepositional phrase. To say that one ‘falls into panic’ is possible, but not that one ‘falls into fear’, because ‘fall’ can only be used with emotions which are generally disapproved of, such as panic, in Russian culture. 2.2.2 Polysemy and prototypicality One of the problems facing scholars who focus on semantics is polysemy. The general ap-proach to polysemy in the present thesis is based on the use of (emotion) words within their specific contexts. Accordingly, meaning is seen to be context-related and polysemy develops through the use of words in different contexts (see Taylor 2012: 219–20 on the definition of polysemy). In cognitive linguistics, polysemy is commonly approached with prototype theory and related theories. Thus, a word-polysemy can be examined and analysed as a category with prototypical and peripheral meanings. Prototype theory was developed by Eleanor Rosch (1978 [overview]) within the research domain of cognitive psychology to address the structure of categories. Categorisation is a cog-nitive mechanism, essential to the processing of sensory perceived environmental information, in humans and other animals. In human cognition, categorisation is the organisation of such information on the basis of different criteria, such as function, shape, and specific attributes. Rosch (1978: 28) distinguished between two basic principles of categorisation in human cog-nition: (I) the principle of cognitive economy, and (II) the principle of perceived world struc-ture,and defined them as follows:

The first has to do with the function of category systems and asserts that the task of category systems is to provide maximum information with the least cognitive effort; the second has to do with the structure of the information so provided and asserts that the perceived world comes as structured information rather than arbi-trary or unpredictable attributes.


Chapter 2 ׀ 16

Rosch’s principles of categorisation emphasise the necessity in the organisation of information, both for economical purpose, i.e., ‘least cognitive effort’, and for logical relations between elements, i.e., ‘structured information’. The first principle concerns the level of inclusiveness, i.e., the extent to which information is detailed, and the level of representativeness, i.e., the extent to which a category member adequately represents the category. Representativeness can be understood in terms of prototypicality, the best example of a given type. These two levels, or dimensions, lead to categorisation at three basic levels: namely superordinate, basic, and subordinate. Table 2.1 illustrates this structure with the category of ‘furniture’ in Rosch et al. (1976: 388), one of the taxonomies included in an experiment stimulus.

Superordinate level Furniture Basic level Chair Table Lamp Subordinate level Kitchen chair

Living room chair Kitchen table Dining room table

Floor lamp Desk lamp

Table 2.1: Structure of the category ‘furniture’ based on Rosch et al. (1976) All three levels include attributes that belong to the category of ‘furniture’, but the three differ from each other in the degree of detail that is included. Rosch found that, of the three levels, the basic level is the most important in human cognition because it is the most informative one. It is at the basic level where common attributes of different subcategories can be identified. For instance, some common attributes of chairs are ‘four legs’, ‘seat’, ‘back’, ‘arms’, and ‘holds people’, while only a couple more are additive attributes that characterise one category, a liv-ing-room, i.e., ‘soft’, ‘large’, ‘cushion’ (Rosch et al. 1976, Appendix I). These additive attrib-utes belong to the subordinate level, which indeed contains more information than the basic level (both common and specific attributes), but the information at the basic level is more eco-nomically organized (for the significance of the basic level to human cognition see also Taylor [1989] 2009: 48–55). As Taylor ([1989] 2009: 48–49) showed, the number of higher and sub-ordinate levels is not fixed. A higher level above the superordinate in Table 2.1 could be ‘AR-TEFACT’, while an additional subordinate level could contain more detailed specification of chairs, tables, or lamps. Rosch further found that categories often consist of more and less representative examples, with the most representative members being the prototypes. In the domain of emotion in language, categorisation firstly refers to the distinction between different emotion words, the best examples of the category emotion (i.e., superordinate level), that form the basic level. Kövecses (2000: 3–4), for example, found anger, sadness, fear, joy, love, to be basic-level emotional terms in English, and annoyance, wrath, rage, and indigna-tion, to be subordinate. Each of these categories is also the linguistic term of an emotion, which is often highly polysemous, at least at the basic level. Hence, the different senses of each such polysemous word can be seen as different category members that together constitute the sub-ordinate level of the category. The relations between the different members within a category form the inner structure of the category. In terms of Rosch’s categorisation, the structure is hierarchical with the best examples at the top and the more peripheral, less representative mem-bers at the bottom. Building on such a categorisation, Bosman (2011), for example, found that ’hb ‘love’ is the prototypical lexeme of affection in Biblical Hebrew (BH), while other terms of affection are more peripheral.

According to Rosch (1975a), the prototypicality of category members is based on the num-ber of common attributes they share. Hence, a category prototype has the largest number of attributes common to many members of the category; members with less common attributes are less typical. The common attributes entail family resemblance among the category mem-bers, according to which no attributes are common to all members, but the distribution of at-tributes among members causes resemblance to different extents between members. Prototypi-cality thus emerges from and correlates with the frequency of attributes: “The more prototypi-cal of a category a member is rated, the more attributes it has in common with other members of the category and the fewer attributes in common with members of the contrasting categories” (Rosch 1978: 37). However, the criteria for category membership are not always clear-cut, and have been keep-ing philosophers, psychologists, linguists, and scholars of other disciplines occupied for many decades (see Geeraerts 2010). On the one hand, all members of a given category must to some extent resemble one another (family resemblance), while on the other hand, members of dif-ferent categories may share some attributes and also partially fit within one or more other cat-egories. Furthermore, the absence of attributes that are associated with a prototype in a given category member does not necessarily make it less typical. This leads to a blurring of category boundaries, through which categories may overlap with each other to some degree. An example from Geeraerts (2010: 192–95) of the polysemous word ‘fruit’ well illustrates this overlap. In addition to senses such as ‘being the seed-bearing part of a plant’ and ‘being sweet, juicy, commonly used for desert’, metaphorically ‘fruit’ also means ‘being the positive outcome of a process or activity’. Obviously the latter is not the most common sense of the word; moreover, it can apply to other words as well, such as ‘achievement’ or ‘gain’, to name but a few. Rosch’s experiments were based on Berlin & Kay’s (1969) cross-linguistic study of colours. In particular, Berlin & Kay showed that the borders between colours are fuzzy, e.g., it is im-possible to identify fixed lines that indicate the border between red and orange, green and blue, etc. on the colour spectrum. In addition, they argued that colour terms in general are conceptu-alised by a limited number of ‘focal colours’, i.e., those colours that are experienced as better representatives than others. Rosch maintained that such basic colours are the best examples of the group they represent. Thus, according to this approach, typicality is a gradual rather than absolute property, allowing items with different numbers of shared attributes, and thus different degrees of similarity, to be categorised together and maintain their uniqueness in terms of rel-ative distance from the prototype. The prototype can be seen as the centre of the category, while items that are relatively distanced from the prototype are understood to be at the periphery of the category (see Tylor [1989] 2009: 8–12). In the domain of emotion, prototypicality within polysemy may be based on different crite-ria, as, for example, the cause of emotion (e.g., human or natural force), the identity of the experiencer of the emotion (e.g., human, deity), the conceptual domain of emotion-events (e.g., kinship, politics, religion), the evaluation of the emotion (i.e., positive/negative), or specific semantic features such as causality. The dominance of a particular criterion (attribute) is trans-lated into prototypicality on the basis of which the degree of typicality of all other types is defined. Prototypicality of words can thus be measured in terms of frequency of occurrence or the evaluation of speakers (see, for example, Tissari 2003 on changes in prototypical meanings of ‘love’ in early modern and present-day English).



Rosch’s principles of categorisation emphasise the necessity in the organisation of information, both for economical purpose, i.e., ‘least cognitive effort’, and for logical relations between elements, i.e., ‘structured information’. The first principle concerns the level of inclusiveness, i.e., the extent to which information is detailed, and the level of representativeness, i.e., the extent to which a category member adequately represents the category. Representativeness can be understood in terms of prototypicality, the best example of a given type. These two levels, or dimensions, lead to categorisation at three basic levels: namely superordinate, basic, and subordinate. Table 2.1 illustrates this structure with the category of ‘furniture’ in Rosch et al. (1976: 388), one of the taxonomies included in an experiment stimulus.

Superordinate level Furniture Basic level Chair Table Lamp Subordinate level Kitchen chair

Living room chair Kitchen table Dining room table

Floor lamp Desk lamp

Table 2.1: Structure of the category ‘furniture’ based on Rosch et al. (1976) All three levels include attributes that belong to the category of ‘furniture’, but the three differ from each other in the degree of detail that is included. Rosch found that, of the three levels, the basic level is the most important in human cognition because it is the most informative one. It is at the basic level where common attributes of different subcategories can be identified. For instance, some common attributes of chairs are ‘four legs’, ‘seat’, ‘back’, ‘arms’, and ‘holds people’, while only a couple more are additive attributes that characterise one category, a liv-ing-room, i.e., ‘soft’, ‘large’, ‘cushion’ (Rosch et al. 1976, Appendix I). These additive attrib-utes belong to the subordinate level, which indeed contains more information than the basic level (both common and specific attributes), but the information at the basic level is more eco-nomically organized (for the significance of the basic level to human cognition see also Taylor [1989] 2009: 48–55). As Taylor ([1989] 2009: 48–49) showed, the number of higher and sub-ordinate levels is not fixed. A higher level above the superordinate in Table 2.1 could be ‘AR-TEFACT’, while an additional subordinate level could contain more detailed specification of chairs, tables, or lamps. Rosch further found that categories often consist of more and less representative examples, with the most representative members being the prototypes. In the domain of emotion in language, categorisation firstly refers to the distinction between different emotion words, the best examples of the category emotion (i.e., superordinate level), that form the basic level. Kövecses (2000: 3–4), for example, found anger, sadness, fear, joy, love, to be basic-level emotional terms in English, and annoyance, wrath, rage, and indigna-tion, to be subordinate. Each of these categories is also the linguistic term of an emotion, which is often highly polysemous, at least at the basic level. Hence, the different senses of each such polysemous word can be seen as different category members that together constitute the sub-ordinate level of the category. The relations between the different members within a category form the inner structure of the category. In terms of Rosch’s categorisation, the structure is hierarchical with the best examples at the top and the more peripheral, less representative mem-bers at the bottom. Building on such a categorisation, Bosman (2011), for example, found that ’hb ‘love’ is the prototypical lexeme of affection in Biblical Hebrew (BH), while other terms of affection are more peripheral.

According to Rosch (1975a), the prototypicality of category members is based on the num-ber of common attributes they share. Hence, a category prototype has the largest number of attributes common to many members of the category; members with less common attributes are less typical. The common attributes entail family resemblance among the category mem-bers, according to which no attributes are common to all members, but the distribution of at-tributes among members causes resemblance to different extents between members. Prototypi-cality thus emerges from and correlates with the frequency of attributes: “The more prototypi-cal of a category a member is rated, the more attributes it has in common with other members of the category and the fewer attributes in common with members of the contrasting categories” (Rosch 1978: 37). However, the criteria for category membership are not always clear-cut, and have been keep-ing philosophers, psychologists, linguists, and scholars of other disciplines occupied for many decades (see Geeraerts 2010). On the one hand, all members of a given category must to some extent resemble one another (family resemblance), while on the other hand, members of dif-ferent categories may share some attributes and also partially fit within one or more other cat-egories. Furthermore, the absence of attributes that are associated with a prototype in a given category member does not necessarily make it less typical. This leads to a blurring of category boundaries, through which categories may overlap with each other to some degree. An example from Geeraerts (2010: 192–95) of the polysemous word ‘fruit’ well illustrates this overlap. In addition to senses such as ‘being the seed-bearing part of a plant’ and ‘being sweet, juicy, commonly used for desert’, metaphorically ‘fruit’ also means ‘being the positive outcome of a process or activity’. Obviously the latter is not the most common sense of the word; moreover, it can apply to other words as well, such as ‘achievement’ or ‘gain’, to name but a few. Rosch’s experiments were based on Berlin & Kay’s (1969) cross-linguistic study of colours. In particular, Berlin & Kay showed that the borders between colours are fuzzy, e.g., it is im-possible to identify fixed lines that indicate the border between red and orange, green and blue, etc. on the colour spectrum. In addition, they argued that colour terms in general are conceptu-alised by a limited number of ‘focal colours’, i.e., those colours that are experienced as better representatives than others. Rosch maintained that such basic colours are the best examples of the group they represent. Thus, according to this approach, typicality is a gradual rather than absolute property, allowing items with different numbers of shared attributes, and thus different degrees of similarity, to be categorised together and maintain their uniqueness in terms of rel-ative distance from the prototype. The prototype can be seen as the centre of the category, while items that are relatively distanced from the prototype are understood to be at the periphery of the category (see Tylor [1989] 2009: 8–12). In the domain of emotion, prototypicality within polysemy may be based on different crite-ria, as, for example, the cause of emotion (e.g., human or natural force), the identity of the experiencer of the emotion (e.g., human, deity), the conceptual domain of emotion-events (e.g., kinship, politics, religion), the evaluation of the emotion (i.e., positive/negative), or specific semantic features such as causality. The dominance of a particular criterion (attribute) is trans-lated into prototypicality on the basis of which the degree of typicality of all other types is defined. Prototypicality of words can thus be measured in terms of frequency of occurrence or the evaluation of speakers (see, for example, Tissari 2003 on changes in prototypical meanings of ‘love’ in early modern and present-day English).


Chapter 2 ׀ 18

A known development of the prototype theory in cognitive linguistics is Lakoff’s (1987) radial categories, which accounts for the organisation of semantic categories and explains the relations between a prototype and other category members. Prototypicality, according to Lakoff, emerges on the basis of complex cognitive models—idealised cognitive models (ICMs)—that are mental representations of the world. Such complex models consist of differ-ent aspects (e.g., physical, biological, cultural) that are involved in the understanding of the world, rather than merely sensory perception. The emergence of a prototype may be the out-come of different integration mechanisms between the models, where cultural conventions play an important role. A prototype may, then, derive from two different models and it has further semantic extensions—“radial categories”—which are not generated from the prototype, but are culture-based. The emergence of radial categories is understood through the ways in which they differ from the prototype.5 An example of a radial category from Lakoff (1987: 74) is ‘MOTHER’, of which the prototype consists of genealogical and nurtural aspects, such as birth-giving, genetics, and caregiving. The subcategories motivated by this prototype are culture-determined and may include ‘stepmother’, ‘birth mother’, ‘adoptive mother’, ‘surrogate mother’, etc. Adoptive

mother

Step- Birth mother Prototype mother

Surrogate Foster mother mother

Figure 2.1: Radial network for the category MOTHER (Evans & Green 2006: 276, based on Lakoff 1987: 74)

The meaning of all five types of mother in Figure 2.1 can be understood on the basis of their divergence from the prototypical. The sense of ‘adoptive mother’ lacks the genealogical, birth-giving attributes, but not caregiving and nurturing; the sense of ‘surrogate mother’, on the other hand, has the attribute of ‘birth giving’, but not caregiving, nurturing and genealogy. An ex-ample from emotions is Bosman’s (2011) lexicographic study on love (’hb) in Biblical Hebrew. The radial network in her work is based on the identity of the experiencer (e.g., human/divine,

5 See also Tyler & Evans 2003 for the related principled polysemy model.

male/female) and conceptual frames (e.g., kinship, politics), and consists of a prototypical sense (interpersonal relationships) and other senses in different distances from the prototype. Prototype theory and subsequent related theories constitute a commonly used approach to polysemy, where different senses of a word have different degrees of similarity to a prototyp-ical meaning on the basis of shared features. A prototypical meaning is generally the more prominent, conventionalised meaning in the mental lexicon, as indicated by the frequency of use and the speakers’ evaluation. Tissari (2003: 241–71), for example, applied the prototypical theory in her historical-semantic corpus study on ‘love’, and found changes in the prototypical sense of this word throughout 500 hundred years of the English language. She examined the diachronic changes in the degree of prototypicality of five prototypical senses of love, namely ‘family love’, ‘friendship’, ‘sexual love’, ‘religious love’, and ‘love of things’. Many of the studies on the meaning and conceptualisation of emotion that take a prototypical approach are based on the examination of metaphor and metonymy of emotion; these will be discussed in 2.3.2. The major criticism of prototype theory concerns its validity as a model of cognitive repre-sentation, and in addressing different problems with the emergence of typicality. Examples include the determination and number of attributes and the blurriness of category boundaries (see Croft & Cruse 2004, Dor 2015), and, within language, the lexical variability of category senses (Geeraerts 2010). A more general critique points at a deficient usage-based account for polysemy that leads to the absence of the speakers’ and the context’s variability. Dor (2015: 67) points at two other problems. The first concerns compounds such as pet fish, which inherits some of the prototypical features from its source categories (i.e. pet and fish), but a prototypical pet fish cannot be a prototypical pet or a prototypical fish. The second problem is the existence of a gap, or dissociation, between speakers’ judgment of prototypicality and word meaning. Dor illustrates this with the word ‘grandmother’. The definition this word as a ‘female parent of a parent’ does not necessarily match with a prototypical “elderly, old-fashioned women who make chicken soup and spoil children with candy”. The kin-relations that define a grandmother are thus not necessarily related to the speakers’ idea about the prototypical grandmother. This indicates the existence of a gap between a semantic and an experiential level in prototypicality. (see Dor 2015 [Chapter 4] for a critical overview of meaning and polysemy). With his ideal cognitive models and radial network, Lakoff (1987) saw an alternative account to semantics and polysemy. He argued that typicality effects do not straightforwardly reflect cognitive rep-resentation; rather, they can emerge in different ways on the basis of complex cognitive models and the interaction between them. In contrast to other approaches to emotion that also distinguish between core and peripheral meanings (i.e., the core meaning view and the dimensional view, see Kövecses & Palmer 1999), the prototype approach is based on the dominant cognitive mechanisms of categorisa-tion and prototypicality. Not only can it serve as an analytical approach in the investigation of meaning and polysemy, it can also be applied from different (contrasting) perspectives, such as social-cultural and universal (physical) experiential (see Kövecses & Palmer 1999 for an overview of the common approaches to emotion-meaning). Corpus linguistics can relatively easily provide an indication of prototypicality on the basis of language use that is measured in the frequency of different factors, as in Tissari (2003), for example.



A known development of the prototype theory in cognitive linguistics is Lakoff’s (1987) radial categories, which accounts for the organisation of semantic categories and explains the relations between a prototype and other category members. Prototypicality, according to Lakoff, emerges on the basis of complex cognitive models—idealised cognitive models (ICMs)—that are mental representations of the world. Such complex models consist of differ-ent aspects (e.g., physical, biological, cultural) that are involved in the understanding of the world, rather than merely sensory perception. The emergence of a prototype may be the out-come of different integration mechanisms between the models, where cultural conventions play an important role. A prototype may, then, derive from two different models and it has further semantic extensions—“radial categories”—which are not generated from the prototype, but are culture-based. The emergence of radial categories is understood through the ways in which they differ from the prototype.5 An example of a radial category from Lakoff (1987: 74) is ‘MOTHER’, of which the prototype consists of genealogical and nurtural aspects, such as birth-giving, genetics, and caregiving. The subcategories motivated by this prototype are culture-determined and may include ‘stepmother’, ‘birth mother’, ‘adoptive mother’, ‘surrogate mother’, etc. Adoptive

mother

Step- Birth mother Prototype mother

Surrogate Foster mother mother

Figure 2.1: Radial network for the category MOTHER (Evans & Green 2006: 276, based on Lakoff 1987: 74)

The meaning of all five types of mother in Figure 2.1 can be understood on the basis of their divergence from the prototypical. The sense of ‘adoptive mother’ lacks the genealogical, birth-giving attributes, but not caregiving and nurturing; the sense of ‘surrogate mother’, on the other hand, has the attribute of ‘birth giving’, but not caregiving, nurturing and genealogy. An ex-ample from emotions is Bosman’s (2011) lexicographic study on love (’hb) in Biblical Hebrew. The radial network in her work is based on the identity of the experiencer (e.g., human/divine,

5 See also Tyler & Evans 2003 for the related principled polysemy model.

male/female) and conceptual frames (e.g., kinship, politics), and consists of a prototypical sense (interpersonal relationships) and other senses in different distances from the prototype. Prototype theory and subsequent related theories constitute a commonly used approach to polysemy, where different senses of a word have different degrees of similarity to a prototyp-ical meaning on the basis of shared features. A prototypical meaning is generally the more prominent, conventionalised meaning in the mental lexicon, as indicated by the frequency of use and the speakers’ evaluation. Tissari (2003: 241–71), for example, applied the prototypical theory in her historical-semantic corpus study on ‘love’, and found changes in the prototypical sense of this word throughout 500 hundred years of the English language. She examined the diachronic changes in the degree of prototypicality of five prototypical senses of love, namely ‘family love’, ‘friendship’, ‘sexual love’, ‘religious love’, and ‘love of things’. Many of the studies on the meaning and conceptualisation of emotion that take a prototypical approach are based on the examination of metaphor and metonymy of emotion; these will be discussed in 2.3.2. The major criticism of prototype theory concerns its validity as a model of cognitive repre-sentation, and in addressing different problems with the emergence of typicality. Examples include the determination and number of attributes and the blurriness of category boundaries (see Croft & Cruse 2004, Dor 2015), and, within language, the lexical variability of category senses (Geeraerts 2010). A more general critique points at a deficient usage-based account for polysemy that leads to the absence of the speakers’ and the context’s variability. Dor (2015: 67) points at two other problems. The first concerns compounds such as pet fish, which inherits some of the prototypical features from its source categories (i.e. pet and fish), but a prototypical pet fish cannot be a prototypical pet or a prototypical fish. The second problem is the existence of a gap, or dissociation, between speakers’ judgment of prototypicality and word meaning. Dor illustrates this with the word ‘grandmother’. The definition this word as a ‘female parent of a parent’ does not necessarily match with a prototypical “elderly, old-fashioned women who make chicken soup and spoil children with candy”. The kin-relations that define a grandmother are thus not necessarily related to the speakers’ idea about the prototypical grandmother. This indicates the existence of a gap between a semantic and an experiential level in prototypicality. (see Dor 2015 [Chapter 4] for a critical overview of meaning and polysemy). With his ideal cognitive models and radial network, Lakoff (1987) saw an alternative account to semantics and polysemy. He argued that typicality effects do not straightforwardly reflect cognitive rep-resentation; rather, they can emerge in different ways on the basis of complex cognitive models and the interaction between them. In contrast to other approaches to emotion that also distinguish between core and peripheral meanings (i.e., the core meaning view and the dimensional view, see Kövecses & Palmer 1999), the prototype approach is based on the dominant cognitive mechanisms of categorisa-tion and prototypicality. Not only can it serve as an analytical approach in the investigation of meaning and polysemy, it can also be applied from different (contrasting) perspectives, such as social-cultural and universal (physical) experiential (see Kövecses & Palmer 1999 for an overview of the common approaches to emotion-meaning). Corpus linguistics can relatively easily provide an indication of prototypicality on the basis of language use that is measured in the frequency of different factors, as in Tissari (2003), for example.


Chapter 2 ׀ 20

2.2.3 Source and cognitive processes of conceptualisation 2.2.3.1 Imagery and mental representation The mechanism of categorisation discussed above provides a basis for meaning and conceptu-alisation by organising the information in an accessible and intelligible way. In particular, the relations between concepts within categories and the relations between different categories are fundamental. This and other cognitive processes involved in conceptualisation are based on a general ability to translate experience to thought and language use. Experience may be physical (sensory-motor) or psychological and its translation to language use requires the employment of imagery. Imagery is a general cognitive mechanism crucial to meaning and conceptualisa-tion, in Langacker’s (1991: 15) words: “our ability to construe a conceived situation in alternate ways” (see Johnson 1987; Lakoff 1987; Dor 2015). Palmer’s (1996: 46–47) elaboration defines imagery as a mental representation, the core of our interpretation of the world, which originates from sensory perception, but concerns the environment in general, including physical, mental, and social experience. Regarding imagery as the basis of language use in its whole, he argues that imagery is the sum of all the different sorts of experience, communicated through language in discourse. The operation of imagery can be understood on the basis of the cognitive compo-nents that constitute it, namely the mental representations, i.e., image-schemas, mental models and scenarios. An image schema is a familiar structure, a relation (e.g., spatial relations) as well as orientation, which is perceived through the interaction of the body with the environment and dictates a structure of experience in general. In other words, an image schema is a cognitive structure that is based on a preconceptual experience; a result of the embodiment of such an experience. Examples of image-schemas are CONTAINER, UP-DOWN, and SOURCE-GOAL. A mental model is the mental representation of the concepts named by words, such as forest, book, restaurant, walk, etc. A scenario is a sequence of actions, and thus, unlike the two former components, consists also of a temporal dimension of experience. Emphasising its cultural origin, Palmer (1966: 75–76) defines scenario as “…a culturally defined sequence of actions, or a story-schema.” Image schemas are the most basic; mental models may include image sche-mas, as for example the model of a book as, among other things, an abstract container of text. In addition, mental models may consist of or represent sociocultural models, such as marriage, party, or army. Scenarios may contain both image schemas and mental models, and also ele-ments such as cause and effect (an illustration of scenario is presented in 2.3.1). The cognitive components of imagery are present in both figurative and non-figurative lan-guage use. As such, they are involved in different ways in other cognitive processes such as metaphorisation and metonymisation (often the object of study in the domain of emotion), but also in syntactic constructions, such as prepositional (see 2.2.1 above), causal-, and transitive constructions, in which image-schemas such as CONTAINER and SOURCE-GOAL may be in-volved, but also scenarios that depict a sequence of subsequent actions and events. Conceptual source is the concept, or conceptual domain, used to express the meaning of a concept from another domain through cognitive processes. A conceptual source may be either concrete (e.g., human body or organs) or abstract (e.g., friendship); either basic (e.g., SPACE,

TASTE) or more complex (e.g., the image schema of CONTAINER, the concept SWEET).6 In the fond names ‘sweetheart’ and ‘honey’ the domain of sensory perception is the conceptual source used to express love or fondness toward someone. This conceptual domain, and in par-ticular sweetness, provides specific features with which the speaker or writer characterises that someone. This conceptual source domain is tightly associated with the mental model of ‘sweet-ness’, a desirable satisfactory concept in English. In a similar way, an emotive-event with cause and effect, such as a fear-event, can involve a conceptual source from the domain of war, as in ‘fear took over’, but also mental representations of the three types, such as the image schema SOURCE-GOAL attributed to the action of the attacker, the mental model of two contrasting parties, or a scenario of the cause of and reaction to fear. Mental representations are essential for understanding and expressing experience, and they are thus interwoven with the conceptual source that they transfer into language. Some image schemas that are found in metaphors and metonyms of emotions cross-linguis-tically imply the existence of cross-cultural similarity in conceptualisation. Perhaps the most common of these is CONTAINER, which represents the human body or a specific organ as the seat of emotions in general or else of a particular emotion. Kövecses (1998, 2000, 2005), in fact, regards this image schema as a conceptual source, and it indeed seems that the borders between mental representations and conceptual source are not necessarily fixed. Examples of the former include the English expression ‘she is full of joy’ or the Hebrew poetic expression ‘amoq ha-‘eśew ba-‘einayim ‘deep is the sorrow in the eyes’, in which the eyes are conceptu-alised as containing sorrow. An example of the latter is the English expression ‘she is in love’, where love is the container of the one who experiences it (see also the examples from Russian in (5)). Other, more specific mental models involved in the conceptualisation of emotions cross-linguistically function as the conceptual source as well, for example, natural forces such as wind or flood. 2.2.3.2 Conceptual metaphors and metonyms Metaphor and metonymy may both shape (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and reflect (e.g., Quinn, 1991; Geeraerts & Grondelaers, 1995) the conceptulisation of emotion. In addition, as Geeraerts (1989:589) argued, metaphorical extension of a lexical item is part of the complexity of this item’s meaning and hence the item’s polysemy (see also Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 2007). The metaphorical sense of ‘fruit’, i.e., ‘being the positive outcome of a process or ac-tivity’, clearly illustrates this, as, although not prototypical, it is one of the senses of the word. Furthermore, such a metaphorical extension of a word’s prototypical sense can shed light on the conceptualisation of the word and the relation between the prototype and the peripheral senses. In other words, a metaphorical extension, such as in the case of ‘fruit’, is not only relevant to the semantic field of a word; rather, it may reveal the motivation underlying such an extension, namely the commonalities between the prototypical sense and the metaphorical

6 It is beyond the scope of the present work to discuss the level of complexity of conceptual domains and image schemas and the differences between the two. For more on this, see Langacker 1987: 147–50 and Clausner & Croft 1999.



2.2.3 Source and cognitive processes of conceptualisation 2.2.3.1 Imagery and mental representation The mechanism of categorisation discussed above provides a basis for meaning and conceptu-alisation by organising the information in an accessible and intelligible way. In particular, the relations between concepts within categories and the relations between different categories are fundamental. This and other cognitive processes involved in conceptualisation are based on a general ability to translate experience to thought and language use. Experience may be physical (sensory-motor) or psychological and its translation to language use requires the employment of imagery. Imagery is a general cognitive mechanism crucial to meaning and conceptualisa-tion, in Langacker’s (1991: 15) words: “our ability to construe a conceived situation in alternate ways” (see Johnson 1987; Lakoff 1987; Dor 2015). Palmer’s (1996: 46–47) elaboration defines imagery as a mental representation, the core of our interpretation of the world, which originates from sensory perception, but concerns the environment in general, including physical, mental, and social experience. Regarding imagery as the basis of language use in its whole, he argues that imagery is the sum of all the different sorts of experience, communicated through language in discourse. The operation of imagery can be understood on the basis of the cognitive compo-nents that constitute it, namely the mental representations, i.e., image-schemas, mental models and scenarios. An image schema is a familiar structure, a relation (e.g., spatial relations) as well as orientation, which is perceived through the interaction of the body with the environment and dictates a structure of experience in general. In other words, an image schema is a cognitive structure that is based on a preconceptual experience; a result of the embodiment of such an experience. Examples of image-schemas are CONTAINER, UP-DOWN, and SOURCE-GOAL. A mental model is the mental representation of the concepts named by words, such as forest, book, restaurant, walk, etc. A scenario is a sequence of actions, and thus, unlike the two former components, consists also of a temporal dimension of experience. Emphasising its cultural origin, Palmer (1966: 75–76) defines scenario as “…a culturally defined sequence of actions, or a story-schema.” Image schemas are the most basic; mental models may include image sche-mas, as for example the model of a book as, among other things, an abstract container of text. In addition, mental models may consist of or represent sociocultural models, such as marriage, party, or army. Scenarios may contain both image schemas and mental models, and also ele-ments such as cause and effect (an illustration of scenario is presented in 2.3.1). The cognitive components of imagery are present in both figurative and non-figurative lan-guage use. As such, they are involved in different ways in other cognitive processes such as metaphorisation and metonymisation (often the object of study in the domain of emotion), but also in syntactic constructions, such as prepositional (see 2.2.1 above), causal-, and transitive constructions, in which image-schemas such as CONTAINER and SOURCE-GOAL may be in-volved, but also scenarios that depict a sequence of subsequent actions and events. Conceptual source is the concept, or conceptual domain, used to express the meaning of a concept from another domain through cognitive processes. A conceptual source may be either concrete (e.g., human body or organs) or abstract (e.g., friendship); either basic (e.g., SPACE,

TASTE) or more complex (e.g., the image schema of CONTAINER, the concept SWEET).6 In the fond names ‘sweetheart’ and ‘honey’ the domain of sensory perception is the conceptual source used to express love or fondness toward someone. This conceptual domain, and in par-ticular sweetness, provides specific features with which the speaker or writer characterises that someone. This conceptual source domain is tightly associated with the mental model of ‘sweet-ness’, a desirable satisfactory concept in English. In a similar way, an emotive-event with cause and effect, such as a fear-event, can involve a conceptual source from the domain of war, as in ‘fear took over’, but also mental representations of the three types, such as the image schema SOURCE-GOAL attributed to the action of the attacker, the mental model of two contrasting parties, or a scenario of the cause of and reaction to fear. Mental representations are essential for understanding and expressing experience, and they are thus interwoven with the conceptual source that they transfer into language. Some image schemas that are found in metaphors and metonyms of emotions cross-linguis-tically imply the existence of cross-cultural similarity in conceptualisation. Perhaps the most common of these is CONTAINER, which represents the human body or a specific organ as the seat of emotions in general or else of a particular emotion. Kövecses (1998, 2000, 2005), in fact, regards this image schema as a conceptual source, and it indeed seems that the borders between mental representations and conceptual source are not necessarily fixed. Examples of the former include the English expression ‘she is full of joy’ or the Hebrew poetic expression ‘amoq ha-‘eśew ba-‘einayim ‘deep is the sorrow in the eyes’, in which the eyes are conceptu-alised as containing sorrow. An example of the latter is the English expression ‘she is in love’, where love is the container of the one who experiences it (see also the examples from Russian in (5)). Other, more specific mental models involved in the conceptualisation of emotions cross-linguistically function as the conceptual source as well, for example, natural forces such as wind or flood. 2.2.3.2 Conceptual metaphors and metonyms Metaphor and metonymy may both shape (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and reflect (e.g., Quinn, 1991; Geeraerts & Grondelaers, 1995) the conceptulisation of emotion. In addition, as Geeraerts (1989:589) argued, metaphorical extension of a lexical item is part of the complexity of this item’s meaning and hence the item’s polysemy (see also Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 2007). The metaphorical sense of ‘fruit’, i.e., ‘being the positive outcome of a process or ac-tivity’, clearly illustrates this, as, although not prototypical, it is one of the senses of the word. Furthermore, such a metaphorical extension of a word’s prototypical sense can shed light on the conceptualisation of the word and the relation between the prototype and the peripheral senses. In other words, a metaphorical extension, such as in the case of ‘fruit’, is not only relevant to the semantic field of a word; rather, it may reveal the motivation underlying such an extension, namely the commonalities between the prototypical sense and the metaphorical

6 It is beyond the scope of the present work to discuss the level of complexity of conceptual domains and image schemas and the differences between the two. For more on this, see Langacker 1987: 147–50 and Clausner & Croft 1999.


Chapter 2 ׀ 22

one, as will be further explained below. Metaphor and metonymy are used in different studies on emotion as a rich source of infor-mation on cross-linguistic conceptualisation (see, for example Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1987; Lakoff & Kövecses 1987; Kövecses 1986, 1990, 2000, 2005; Athanasiadou & Tabakow-ska (Eds.) 1998; Tissari 2003, 2010; Wierzbicka & Enfield (Eds.) 2002; Sharifian et al. (Eds.) 2008; Zlatev et al., 2012). I will first refer in short to metaphor and subsequently to metonymy. In cognitive linguistics, metaphor is primarily seen as a cognitive mechanism, in which a given concept (target) is understood through the characteristics of another concept or experi-ence (source), which is more familiar, prominent, or concrete than the target. With their con-ceptual metaphor theory, Lakoff & Johnson (1980) claimed that metaphor is a pre-linguistic mechanism that structures understanding and reason, and metaphors in a language reflect this cognitive mechanism. This may be illustrated by the metaphorical expression ‘I’m mad about you’ that was mentioned in the introductory section, wherein love is expressed in terms of madness. Although this metaphor includes the word ‘mad’, it actually describes intensified love and not madness. In this expression, some features of madness, such as irrational or unu-sual behaviour, are mapped onto the state of being in love by way of analogy. In this way, the metaphor shows a conceptual link between madness and love, which in Lakoff & Johnson’s terminology form a “conceptual metaphor”, such as LOVE IS MADNESS. This conceptual met-aphor is the source of different conventional metaphors of which ‘I’m mad about you’ is but one example. Thus construed, conceptual metaphors are superordinate categories, of which conventional metaphors are the subordinate. Whether the motivation for the use of such meta-phor is intensification (i.e., expressiveness) or something else, the specific choice to express love in terms of madness reveals an underlying conceptualisation and perception of this emo-tion, at least in its intensified form, for speakers of English (on the use of similar expressions in Hebrew, see Vardi 2015). The mapping from source to target may also be based on correla-tion rather than analogy. For example, Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 58–59) argue that:

The TIME IS A MOVING OBJECT conceptual metaphor is based on the correlation between an object moving toward us and the time it takes to get to us. The same correlation is a basis for the TIME IS A CONTAINER metaphor (as in “he did it in ten minutes”), with the bounded space traversed by the object correlated with the time the objects takes to traverse it. Events and actions are correlated with bounded time spans, and this makes them CONTAINER OBJECTS.

All these examples show, again, the tight relation between the conceptual source (e.g., mad-ness) and the mental representations (e.g., irrational/unusual behaviour of the mad) that are also a conceptual source. Metonymy is a cognitive mechanism in which a meaning of a given concept is expressed through another, related, concept on the basis of specific types of relation, such as part-whole, place-event, or possessor-possession (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 38–39). The metonymy ‘she’s parked next to the tree’ is an example of a possessor-possession relation, where ‘she’ refers to a vehicle, a possession of the person who parked it next to the tree, i.e., the possessor. Meton-ymy indicates cognitive salience/entrenchment of one participant or entity within a given rela-tion, which can be based on different aspects. In the example above, the animacy of the

possessor, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, may drive the prominence of this participant in the possessor-possession relationship (on salience, see Langacker 1991: 170–171). Similar to the mental representations discussed in the previous section, the theory of con-ceptual metaphor is likewise based on the experiential approach according to which meaning and conceptualisation originate from the physical experience of the human body and its inter-action with the environment. The use of metaphors and metonyms clearly illustrates the work-ing of mental representations in language. Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 59–60) argue that, whereas different types of experience, such as physical, social, or emotional, may be equally basic, the conceptualisation of experience is not equally basic. The conceptualisation of non-, or less, physical experience is based on a physical, more ‘delineated’ experience. Lakoff & Johnson (1999) have developed this idea further into the notion of embodiment, referring to the subcon-scious cognitive processes underlying thought. According to their hypothesis, perception (sen-sory-motor activities) and conception (thought) involve the same neural system and mecha-nisms, and, thus, “the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world” (Lakoff & Johnson 1999: 37). Conceptual metaphors are the means through which these properties are created. This process is a mapping of image-schematic patterns from one domain (the source) to the other (the target). Embodiment in language is explained by the same general pattern of embodied (or grounded) cognition: processing of conceptual knowledge is facilitated when the areas of the brain that handle motor, visual, and other concrete experiences are in-volved. Embodiment is argued to be pervasive in language and cognition (see, for example, Gibbs 2005 for experimental evidence).7 The experiential approach implies a universal source of conceptualisation, as humans in all cultures share image schemas based on physical phenomena, such as gravity, the verticality of the human body, or the quantity-based stacking of substance, and, hence, share a similar per-ception of experiential interaction with the environment. This implied universal character has evoked a fundamental debate between proponents of culture and proponents of universal ex-perience and embodiment over the origin of meaning and conceptualisation. It is, however, important to note that already in their early work, Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 57, italics in the source) emphasised the cultural ground of conceptual metaphors:

[W]hat we call ‘direct physical experience’ is never merely a matter of having a body of a certain sort; rather, every experience takes place within a vast background of cultural presuppositions. It can be misleading, therefore, to speak of direct phys-ical experience as though there were some core of immediate experience which we then ‘interpret’ in terms of our conceptual system. Cultural assumptions, values, and attitudes are not a conceptual overlay which we may or may not place upon experience as we choose. It would be more correct to say that all experience is cultural through and through, that we experience our ‘world’ in such a way that our culture is already present in the very experience itself.

7 According to the more elaborate view of grounded cognition, bodily experience is but one aspect of cognition and is not always part of it. Instead, cognition is based on a much more complex experience of wider sensorimotor experience, context, and introspection (see Barsalou 2008).



one, as will be further explained below. Metaphor and metonymy are used in different studies on emotion as a rich source of infor-mation on cross-linguistic conceptualisation (see, for example Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1987; Lakoff & Kövecses 1987; Kövecses 1986, 1990, 2000, 2005; Athanasiadou & Tabakow-ska (Eds.) 1998; Tissari 2003, 2010; Wierzbicka & Enfield (Eds.) 2002; Sharifian et al. (Eds.) 2008; Zlatev et al., 2012). I will first refer in short to metaphor and subsequently to metonymy. In cognitive linguistics, metaphor is primarily seen as a cognitive mechanism, in which a given concept (target) is understood through the characteristics of another concept or experi-ence (source), which is more familiar, prominent, or concrete than the target. With their con-ceptual metaphor theory, Lakoff & Johnson (1980) claimed that metaphor is a pre-linguistic mechanism that structures understanding and reason, and metaphors in a language reflect this cognitive mechanism. This may be illustrated by the metaphorical expression ‘I’m mad about you’ that was mentioned in the introductory section, wherein love is expressed in terms of madness. Although this metaphor includes the word ‘mad’, it actually describes intensified love and not madness. In this expression, some features of madness, such as irrational or unu-sual behaviour, are mapped onto the state of being in love by way of analogy. In this way, the metaphor shows a conceptual link between madness and love, which in Lakoff & Johnson’s terminology form a “conceptual metaphor”, such as LOVE IS MADNESS. This conceptual met-aphor is the source of different conventional metaphors of which ‘I’m mad about you’ is but one example. Thus construed, conceptual metaphors are superordinate categories, of which conventional metaphors are the subordinate. Whether the motivation for the use of such meta-phor is intensification (i.e., expressiveness) or something else, the specific choice to express love in terms of madness reveals an underlying conceptualisation and perception of this emo-tion, at least in its intensified form, for speakers of English (on the use of similar expressions in Hebrew, see Vardi 2015). The mapping from source to target may also be based on correla-tion rather than analogy. For example, Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 58–59) argue that:

The TIME IS A MOVING OBJECT conceptual metaphor is based on the correlation between an object moving toward us and the time it takes to get to us. The same correlation is a basis for the TIME IS A CONTAINER metaphor (as in “he did it in ten minutes”), with the bounded space traversed by the object correlated with the time the objects takes to traverse it. Events and actions are correlated with bounded time spans, and this makes them CONTAINER OBJECTS.

All these examples show, again, the tight relation between the conceptual source (e.g., mad-ness) and the mental representations (e.g., irrational/unusual behaviour of the mad) that are also a conceptual source. Metonymy is a cognitive mechanism in which a meaning of a given concept is expressed through another, related, concept on the basis of specific types of relation, such as part-whole, place-event, or possessor-possession (Lakoff & Johnson 1980: 38–39). The metonymy ‘she’s parked next to the tree’ is an example of a possessor-possession relation, where ‘she’ refers to a vehicle, a possession of the person who parked it next to the tree, i.e., the possessor. Meton-ymy indicates cognitive salience/entrenchment of one participant or entity within a given rela-tion, which can be based on different aspects. In the example above, the animacy of the

possessor, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, may drive the prominence of this participant in the possessor-possession relationship (on salience, see Langacker 1991: 170–171). Similar to the mental representations discussed in the previous section, the theory of con-ceptual metaphor is likewise based on the experiential approach according to which meaning and conceptualisation originate from the physical experience of the human body and its inter-action with the environment. The use of metaphors and metonyms clearly illustrates the work-ing of mental representations in language. Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 59–60) argue that, whereas different types of experience, such as physical, social, or emotional, may be equally basic, the conceptualisation of experience is not equally basic. The conceptualisation of non-, or less, physical experience is based on a physical, more ‘delineated’ experience. Lakoff & Johnson (1999) have developed this idea further into the notion of embodiment, referring to the subcon-scious cognitive processes underlying thought. According to their hypothesis, perception (sen-sory-motor activities) and conception (thought) involve the same neural system and mecha-nisms, and, thus, “the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world” (Lakoff & Johnson 1999: 37). Conceptual metaphors are the means through which these properties are created. This process is a mapping of image-schematic patterns from one domain (the source) to the other (the target). Embodiment in language is explained by the same general pattern of embodied (or grounded) cognition: processing of conceptual knowledge is facilitated when the areas of the brain that handle motor, visual, and other concrete experiences are in-volved. Embodiment is argued to be pervasive in language and cognition (see, for example, Gibbs 2005 for experimental evidence).7 The experiential approach implies a universal source of conceptualisation, as humans in all cultures share image schemas based on physical phenomena, such as gravity, the verticality of the human body, or the quantity-based stacking of substance, and, hence, share a similar per-ception of experiential interaction with the environment. This implied universal character has evoked a fundamental debate between proponents of culture and proponents of universal ex-perience and embodiment over the origin of meaning and conceptualisation. It is, however, important to note that already in their early work, Lakoff & Johnson (1980: 57, italics in the source) emphasised the cultural ground of conceptual metaphors:

[W]hat we call ‘direct physical experience’ is never merely a matter of having a body of a certain sort; rather, every experience takes place within a vast background of cultural presuppositions. It can be misleading, therefore, to speak of direct phys-ical experience as though there were some core of immediate experience which we then ‘interpret’ in terms of our conceptual system. Cultural assumptions, values, and attitudes are not a conceptual overlay which we may or may not place upon experience as we choose. It would be more correct to say that all experience is cultural through and through, that we experience our ‘world’ in such a way that our culture is already present in the very experience itself.

7 According to the more elaborate view of grounded cognition, bodily experience is but one aspect of cognition and is not always part of it. Instead, cognition is based on a much more complex experience of wider sensorimotor experience, context, and introspection (see Barsalou 2008).


Chapter 2 ׀ 24

What Lakoff & Johnson (1980) argue is that cultures differ from each other in the value they attribute to concepts. Thus, image schemas of basic physical experience, such as UP and DOWN, may receive different values across cultures and sub-cultures. Hence, metaphors such as ‘I’m high’ or ‘I’m in the seventh heaven’, which are based on the conceptual metaphor GOOD IS UP, are not necessarily universal, and are not even necessarily shared by all sub-cultures of American English speakers. The relevance of the culture vs. universality debate to the study of emotion is further elaborated in 2.3. 2.2.3.3 Summary The previous sections presented common analytical concepts in the examination of meaning and conceptualisation within the framework of cognitive linguistics, illustrated with a few ex-amples of their application in the study of emotion. It has been shown how the vocabulary of emotions and the constructional relations between emotion words and other components to-gether are used as a rich source of information about underlying conceptions. The basic cate-gorisation of emotion terms, prototypicality as an account for polysemy, emotion verbs and their valence, and prepositional collocations, can all shed light on the way emotional experi-ence is conceptualised. The notion of imagery as a fundamental ability and figurative language, in particular conceptual metaphors and metonymies, were emphasised as important means and source of meaning and conceptualisation. Although the analytical concepts above are general and not language-dependent, it was shown that their application in the investigation of emotion, and particularly the outcome of this application, is often language-dependent. As was also shown, languages with equivalent grammatical systems, for example, prepositions, differ from each other in the use of these sys-tems to express or report about emotions. Such differences have direct consequences for the meaning and conceptualisation of emotions in terms of temporality and the nature of the rela-tions between the actors involved in emotion-events. The same also applies to the general cog-nitive mechanisms of categorisation, imagery, metaphorisation, and metonymisation, which, although they may be universal, do not imply the same meaning and conceptualisation cross-linguistically. Cross-linguistic differences in emotional lexicon and conceptualisation call attention to cul-tural differences and culture-specific experience. The (alleged) dichotomy between culture and universal experience will be discussed in the following section, where it will be shown that the two are not simply separable. In particular, it will be argued that analytical concepts, universal though they may be, receive their significance within the languages and cultures in which they operate, and that both universal and culture-specific experience play an important role in the conceptualisation of emotion.

2.3 Universal vs. culture-specific experience as source of conceptualisation 2.3.1 Universal (physical) vs. culture-specific experience A well-known example of the experiential approach to conceptualisation of emotion is a case study on anger in American English by Kövecses & Lakoff (Kövecses 1986, also in Lakoff 1987; Lakoff & Kövecses 1987). Based on metaphors and metonymies, Kövecses (1986) de-veloped a prototypical scenario of anger in American English that reflects the most common conceptions of anger in his data. This scenario of anger illustrates a common approach to the study of emotion, where both conceptual metaphor theory and prototype theory are applied. An outline of the scenario is presented in (6). It is important to note that anger, as well as other emotions in English and other languages, may be conceptualised in many other ways than what Kövecses & Lakoff’s scenario suggests, namely that underlying conceptions of emotions may originate from other types of experience than that of the scenario. (6) Prototypical scenario of anger in American English

(an outline of the scenario in Kövecses 1986: 28–29)

Stage 1: Offending event Stage 2: Anger Stage 3: Attempt at control Stage 4: Loss of control Stage 5: Act of retribution.

Kövecses & Lakoff’s prototypical scenario of anger schematises a process of five stages. It starts with an offending event (Stage 1), e.g., a wrongdoing by another person towards the experiencer. Subsequently, the physical feeling of anger develops, i.e., an increase in heat, pressure, and agitation, which produces a need to commit an act of retribution (Stage 2). This feeling leads to an attempt to control anger (stage 3), and is followed by a loss of control (Stage 4). In this stage, the experiencer is controlled by increasing anger and expresses anger through their behaviour. Finally, in Stage 5, the experiencer commits an act of retribution against the offender. The five stages together model a complex experience involving a physical-psycho-logical-cognitive process and a social interaction. Each of the metaphors and metonymies on which the scenario is based can be mapped onto one of the stages and, thus, highlights one stage or aspect of the experience of anger. The scenario above suggests that (some) speakers of American English (in the 1980s) pro-totypically conceptualised the experience of anger as a reaction to an offence. This reaction further creates pressure on the experiencer to act, while at the same time an attempt to control this pressure emerges. The experiencer subsequently loses control of their anger and acts. The scenario implies that, although the experiencer’s act is conscious and directed at the offender, the overall experience is imposed on him/her, and it is unclear whether acting upon the offender is volitional or not. In addition, the experience of anger, as reflected from the scenario, is clearly individual, though both the cause and the resulting conduct may involve social interaction. The



What Lakoff & Johnson (1980) argue is that cultures differ from each other in the value they attribute to concepts. Thus, image schemas of basic physical experience, such as UP and DOWN, may receive different values across cultures and sub-cultures. Hence, metaphors such as ‘I’m high’ or ‘I’m in the seventh heaven’, which are based on the conceptual metaphor GOOD IS UP, are not necessarily universal, and are not even necessarily shared by all sub-cultures of American English speakers. The relevance of the culture vs. universality debate to the study of emotion is further elaborated in 2.3. 2.2.3.3 Summary The previous sections presented common analytical concepts in the examination of meaning and conceptualisation within the framework of cognitive linguistics, illustrated with a few ex-amples of their application in the study of emotion. It has been shown how the vocabulary of emotions and the constructional relations between emotion words and other components to-gether are used as a rich source of information about underlying conceptions. The basic cate-gorisation of emotion terms, prototypicality as an account for polysemy, emotion verbs and their valence, and prepositional collocations, can all shed light on the way emotional experi-ence is conceptualised. The notion of imagery as a fundamental ability and figurative language, in particular conceptual metaphors and metonymies, were emphasised as important means and source of meaning and conceptualisation. Although the analytical concepts above are general and not language-dependent, it was shown that their application in the investigation of emotion, and particularly the outcome of this application, is often language-dependent. As was also shown, languages with equivalent grammatical systems, for example, prepositions, differ from each other in the use of these sys-tems to express or report about emotions. Such differences have direct consequences for the meaning and conceptualisation of emotions in terms of temporality and the nature of the rela-tions between the actors involved in emotion-events. The same also applies to the general cog-nitive mechanisms of categorisation, imagery, metaphorisation, and metonymisation, which, although they may be universal, do not imply the same meaning and conceptualisation cross-linguistically. Cross-linguistic differences in emotional lexicon and conceptualisation call attention to cul-tural differences and culture-specific experience. The (alleged) dichotomy between culture and universal experience will be discussed in the following section, where it will be shown that the two are not simply separable. In particular, it will be argued that analytical concepts, universal though they may be, receive their significance within the languages and cultures in which they operate, and that both universal and culture-specific experience play an important role in the conceptualisation of emotion.

2.3 Universal vs. culture-specific experience as source of conceptualisation 2.3.1 Universal (physical) vs. culture-specific experience A well-known example of the experiential approach to conceptualisation of emotion is a case study on anger in American English by Kövecses & Lakoff (Kövecses 1986, also in Lakoff 1987; Lakoff & Kövecses 1987). Based on metaphors and metonymies, Kövecses (1986) de-veloped a prototypical scenario of anger in American English that reflects the most common conceptions of anger in his data. This scenario of anger illustrates a common approach to the study of emotion, where both conceptual metaphor theory and prototype theory are applied. An outline of the scenario is presented in (6). It is important to note that anger, as well as other emotions in English and other languages, may be conceptualised in many other ways than what Kövecses & Lakoff’s scenario suggests, namely that underlying conceptions of emotions may originate from other types of experience than that of the scenario. (6) Prototypical scenario of anger in American English

(an outline of the scenario in Kövecses 1986: 28–29)

Stage 1: Offending event Stage 2: Anger Stage 3: Attempt at control Stage 4: Loss of control Stage 5: Act of retribution.

Kövecses & Lakoff’s prototypical scenario of anger schematises a process of five stages. It starts with an offending event (Stage 1), e.g., a wrongdoing by another person towards the experiencer. Subsequently, the physical feeling of anger develops, i.e., an increase in heat, pressure, and agitation, which produces a need to commit an act of retribution (Stage 2). This feeling leads to an attempt to control anger (stage 3), and is followed by a loss of control (Stage 4). In this stage, the experiencer is controlled by increasing anger and expresses anger through their behaviour. Finally, in Stage 5, the experiencer commits an act of retribution against the offender. The five stages together model a complex experience involving a physical-psycho-logical-cognitive process and a social interaction. Each of the metaphors and metonymies on which the scenario is based can be mapped onto one of the stages and, thus, highlights one stage or aspect of the experience of anger. The scenario above suggests that (some) speakers of American English (in the 1980s) pro-totypically conceptualised the experience of anger as a reaction to an offence. This reaction further creates pressure on the experiencer to act, while at the same time an attempt to control this pressure emerges. The experiencer subsequently loses control of their anger and acts. The scenario implies that, although the experiencer’s act is conscious and directed at the offender, the overall experience is imposed on him/her, and it is unclear whether acting upon the offender is volitional or not. In addition, the experience of anger, as reflected from the scenario, is clearly individual, though both the cause and the resulting conduct may involve social interaction. The


Chapter 2 ׀ 26

expression of anger, according to Kövecses & Lakoff’s scenario, originates from a state of the experiencer and serves their welfare. As for anger itself, many of the examined metaphors and metonymies imply a general con-ception of this emotion as a hot substance in a container, based on an increase in body temper-ature during the experience of anger. This led the author to assume the existence of the proto-typical conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HOT FLUID IN CONTAINER underlying the linguistic metaphors and metonymies. The container is a conceptualisation of the human body; as a result of an external stimulus, i.e., offending event, the temperature of the fluid substance in the con-tainer increases and there occurs pressure that may lead to explosion, i.e., loss of control. Kövecses & Lakoff’s scenario conceptualises anger primarily as an effect of or a reaction to an antecedent event and, consequently, as a cause of action. According to Kövecses (1989), emotions may be conceptualized as both cause and effect. Some empirical evidence for the association between heat and anger (Wilkowsky, Meier, Robinson, Carter, & Feltman 2009) has been found in English speakers and may support the experiential approach (see also Fet-terman, Robinson, Gordon, & Ellit 2011, for evidence of the association between redness and anger, related to expressions in which redness of the face is a manifestation of anger). The question that such evidence raises is whether such findings can be explained solely in terms of experience, or whether perhaps the entrenchment and conventionality of anger metaphors and metonymies in English influence the associations as well. The assumed physical source of the conceptualisation of anger in Kövecses & Lakoff’s sce-nario implies the possibility that similar scenarios would also exist in languages other than English. In other words, the universality of the human body, its physiology, and interaction with the environment should lead to similar conceptualisations of emotion in different lan-guages. A specific critique of this study by Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) emphasised some of the problems raised by this implication, and offers a good illustration of the more general question about the conceptual source. In their paper, Geeraerts & Grondelaers argued that the universal experiential approach ignores cultural traditions. While they did not reject the con-ceptual metaphor of anger as a hot fluid in a container, they suggested that cultural traditions are the source of this conceptualisation in English and other European languages rather than universal experience. In particular, Geeraerts & Grondelaers drew a link between linguistic metaphors in English, French, and Dutch and the doctrine of the four humours founded by Hippocrates of Kos (approximately 460–370 BCE), which was common in Classical and Me-dieval physiology. According to this doctrine, four kinds of fluids (humours) in the body reg-ulate its physical and emotional functioning, and a balance between the four is necessary for a healthy body. A dominance of one humour relative to the other three determines the tempera-ment and, since it cancels the balance between the four, can cause illness. In the case of emo-tions, anger (as a manifestation of the choleric temperament) is caused by a dominance of yellow bile. Geeaerts & Grondelaers (1995) argued that the dominance of this doctrine in the Middle Ages influenced linguistic metaphors of anger, and other concepts, in the three Euro-pean languages they examined. Hence, they claimed, the metaphorisation of anger as a hot fluid in a container in these languages is more likely the result of the influence of an outdated cultural tradition than a result of a universal physical experience. The critique of a conceptualisation that ignores cultural traditions, and cultural models more generally, is not unworthy or inappropriate. Furthermore, the idea that the conceptualisation of

anger as a hot fluid in a container may be universal cannot be determined on the basis of one language alone, as in the case of Kövecses (1986). Later cross-linguistic studies on metaphors and metonymies of emotions show similarities to the model in English, but also evidence for several cross-linguistic differences (see, for example, Kövecses 1995 on anger, and Kövecses 1990, 2000, 2005; Athanasiadou & Tabakowska (Eds.) 1998; Enfield & Wierzbicka (Eds.) 2002; Sharifian et al. (Eds.) 2008; Zlatev et al. 2012). Such studies, in fact, show that universal physical experience and cultural models do not necessarily contradict each other as two unre-lated sources of conceptualisation, rather they may coexist. Interestingly, cross-linguistically many of the metaphors and metonymies include mappings from different aspects of physical experience, such as physiological sensations, body parts, or natural phenomena. More specifi-cally, the basic conceptualisation of anger as (hot) fluid or substance in a container was found in different languages, but with differences in the specific location of the container within the human body, as well as differences in the specific process the fluid undergoes (see, for exam-ple, Matsuki 1995 on anger in Japanese; Taylor & Mbense 1998 on anger in Zulu; and Kruger 2000; van Wolde 2008; and Schlimm 2008 on anger in Biblical Hebrew). Thus, cross-cultural differences often occur in the details, such as the specific body part that serves as the seat of emotions, or in specific physiological sensations, as the examples in (7) show. (7) a. Indonesian: Patah hati [body part]

broken liver ‘broken heart (lit. broken liver)’ (Siahaan 2008: 46)

b. Thai: ‘heart dance’ (‘feel surprised’) [motion/physiological sensation] (Zlatev et al. 2012: 443)

As (7a) shows, hati ‘liver’ is the organ associated with emotions in Malayan languages, and in (7b), ‘dance’ is the motion associated with the heart in experiencing surprise. The human body and bodily experience are, however, not the only source domains of metaphors and metonymies of emotions. Physical processes (e.g., fire) and forces, animals, and spatial relations are some examples of other source domains (see Kövecses 2000).8 Other cross-linguistic differences are concerned not with the physical conceptual source, but other aspects like evaluation (i.e., pos-itive/negative), (lack of) control, or activeness/passiveness (see, for example, Mikołajczuk 1998 on the differences between English and Polish expression of anger). Cross-linguistic met-aphors and metonymies of emotion, in fact, reveal the coexistence of universal and culture-based experiences. On the one hand, the human body and its interaction with the environment are used as a conceptual source in different languages, and, on the other hand, cross-linguistic differences emphasise the cultural differences in the attribution of properties and functions to the body, its organs, and its physiological processes, as well as the consequences these have for behaviour.

8 According to Kövecses (2000), the conceptual sources are not unique to emotions, but are part of metaphorical mapping in general.



expression of anger, according to Kövecses & Lakoff’s scenario, originates from a state of the experiencer and serves their welfare. As for anger itself, many of the examined metaphors and metonymies imply a general con-ception of this emotion as a hot substance in a container, based on an increase in body temper-ature during the experience of anger. This led the author to assume the existence of the proto-typical conceptual metaphor ANGER IS HOT FLUID IN CONTAINER underlying the linguistic metaphors and metonymies. The container is a conceptualisation of the human body; as a result of an external stimulus, i.e., offending event, the temperature of the fluid substance in the con-tainer increases and there occurs pressure that may lead to explosion, i.e., loss of control. Kövecses & Lakoff’s scenario conceptualises anger primarily as an effect of or a reaction to an antecedent event and, consequently, as a cause of action. According to Kövecses (1989), emotions may be conceptualized as both cause and effect. Some empirical evidence for the association between heat and anger (Wilkowsky, Meier, Robinson, Carter, & Feltman 2009) has been found in English speakers and may support the experiential approach (see also Fet-terman, Robinson, Gordon, & Ellit 2011, for evidence of the association between redness and anger, related to expressions in which redness of the face is a manifestation of anger). The question that such evidence raises is whether such findings can be explained solely in terms of experience, or whether perhaps the entrenchment and conventionality of anger metaphors and metonymies in English influence the associations as well. The assumed physical source of the conceptualisation of anger in Kövecses & Lakoff’s sce-nario implies the possibility that similar scenarios would also exist in languages other than English. In other words, the universality of the human body, its physiology, and interaction with the environment should lead to similar conceptualisations of emotion in different lan-guages. A specific critique of this study by Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) emphasised some of the problems raised by this implication, and offers a good illustration of the more general question about the conceptual source. In their paper, Geeraerts & Grondelaers argued that the universal experiential approach ignores cultural traditions. While they did not reject the con-ceptual metaphor of anger as a hot fluid in a container, they suggested that cultural traditions are the source of this conceptualisation in English and other European languages rather than universal experience. In particular, Geeraerts & Grondelaers drew a link between linguistic metaphors in English, French, and Dutch and the doctrine of the four humours founded by Hippocrates of Kos (approximately 460–370 BCE), which was common in Classical and Me-dieval physiology. According to this doctrine, four kinds of fluids (humours) in the body reg-ulate its physical and emotional functioning, and a balance between the four is necessary for a healthy body. A dominance of one humour relative to the other three determines the tempera-ment and, since it cancels the balance between the four, can cause illness. In the case of emo-tions, anger (as a manifestation of the choleric temperament) is caused by a dominance of yellow bile. Geeaerts & Grondelaers (1995) argued that the dominance of this doctrine in the Middle Ages influenced linguistic metaphors of anger, and other concepts, in the three Euro-pean languages they examined. Hence, they claimed, the metaphorisation of anger as a hot fluid in a container in these languages is more likely the result of the influence of an outdated cultural tradition than a result of a universal physical experience. The critique of a conceptualisation that ignores cultural traditions, and cultural models more generally, is not unworthy or inappropriate. Furthermore, the idea that the conceptualisation of

anger as a hot fluid in a container may be universal cannot be determined on the basis of one language alone, as in the case of Kövecses (1986). Later cross-linguistic studies on metaphors and metonymies of emotions show similarities to the model in English, but also evidence for several cross-linguistic differences (see, for example, Kövecses 1995 on anger, and Kövecses 1990, 2000, 2005; Athanasiadou & Tabakowska (Eds.) 1998; Enfield & Wierzbicka (Eds.) 2002; Sharifian et al. (Eds.) 2008; Zlatev et al. 2012). Such studies, in fact, show that universal physical experience and cultural models do not necessarily contradict each other as two unre-lated sources of conceptualisation, rather they may coexist. Interestingly, cross-linguistically many of the metaphors and metonymies include mappings from different aspects of physical experience, such as physiological sensations, body parts, or natural phenomena. More specifi-cally, the basic conceptualisation of anger as (hot) fluid or substance in a container was found in different languages, but with differences in the specific location of the container within the human body, as well as differences in the specific process the fluid undergoes (see, for exam-ple, Matsuki 1995 on anger in Japanese; Taylor & Mbense 1998 on anger in Zulu; and Kruger 2000; van Wolde 2008; and Schlimm 2008 on anger in Biblical Hebrew). Thus, cross-cultural differences often occur in the details, such as the specific body part that serves as the seat of emotions, or in specific physiological sensations, as the examples in (7) show. (7) a. Indonesian: Patah hati [body part]

broken liver ‘broken heart (lit. broken liver)’ (Siahaan 2008: 46)

b. Thai: ‘heart dance’ (‘feel surprised’) [motion/physiological sensation] (Zlatev et al. 2012: 443)

As (7a) shows, hati ‘liver’ is the organ associated with emotions in Malayan languages, and in (7b), ‘dance’ is the motion associated with the heart in experiencing surprise. The human body and bodily experience are, however, not the only source domains of metaphors and metonymies of emotions. Physical processes (e.g., fire) and forces, animals, and spatial relations are some examples of other source domains (see Kövecses 2000).8 Other cross-linguistic differences are concerned not with the physical conceptual source, but other aspects like evaluation (i.e., pos-itive/negative), (lack of) control, or activeness/passiveness (see, for example, Mikołajczuk 1998 on the differences between English and Polish expression of anger). Cross-linguistic met-aphors and metonymies of emotion, in fact, reveal the coexistence of universal and culture-based experiences. On the one hand, the human body and its interaction with the environment are used as a conceptual source in different languages, and, on the other hand, cross-linguistic differences emphasise the cultural differences in the attribution of properties and functions to the body, its organs, and its physiological processes, as well as the consequences these have for behaviour.

8 According to Kövecses (2000), the conceptual sources are not unique to emotions, but are part of metaphorical mapping in general.


Chapter 2 ׀ 28

While the relevance of culture to conceptualisation of emotion is not in doubt, Geeraerts & Grondelaers’s (1995) critique of Kövecses & Lakoff’s scenario raises a question about the very source of the four humours doctrine they defend. Regardless of the lack of cross-linguistic evidence in Kövecses (1986) and other studies on metaphors in the 1980s and early 1990s that may have led to the critique, it is not clear how the classical doctrine of the four humours emerged in the first place. It is not impossible that it was (at least partially) based on the met-aphorical conceptualisation of physiological processes that originated from the same experien-tial conceptualisation about which Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) are sceptical. The doctrine began gradually to lose its hegemony in the Renaissance, when new empirical evidence became available, and, since the middle of the 19th century, it is no longer followed in medicine. The lack of valid empirical evidence in European antiquity and the Middle Ages suggests that the doctrine could be based on beliefs and conceptions, which, at least partially, were based on physiological experience and perception. It is, thus, likely that experience-based cognitive pro-cesses, such as imagination or abstraction, might have been useful instruments in scientific theorising. This point can be illustrated with another outdated theory and its reflection on lan-guage. In their paper, Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) explain their view by comparing the concep-tualisation of anger as hot fluid in a container to the English ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’. They argue that these expressions are still used in English in spite of the invalidity of the geocentric para-digm (according to which the Earth and planets revolve around the sun) they originate from. The geocentric paradigm was common until the Copernican Revolution, but ‘sunrise’ and ‘sun-set’ have remained in the language as dead metaphors that do not reflect natural laws or phys-ical experience, but an outdated theory or belief. It seems, however, that the existence of these dead metaphors, in fact, reflects a clear human physical experience, namely visual perception, although this experience is not consistent with natural laws. In human visible perception it is the sun that revolves, seen as moving up and down, and not the Earth. Thus, the universal physical experience is not necessarily the same thing as natural laws, but it is the way humans perceive and experience these laws. The point to be emphasised is that cultural traditions and universal physical experience are not easily distinguished from each other as two different sources of emotion conceptualisation. Cultural traditions emerge on the basis of human experience of all kinds, e.g., physical, psychological, geographical, social, etc. Hence, conceptualisation of emotion, and conceptualisation in general, presumably includes aspects of human experience within spe-cific cultures and which may be partly universal. In an attempt to overcome the dichotomy of cultural/universal experience, and to provide an alternative to the dominance of English in semantic investigation, Wierzbicka developed the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), as a tool for cross-linguistic semantic examination (see an overview in Wierzbicka 1999). The NSM is related to the broader core-meaning view of emotion conceptualisation (see Kövecses & Palmer 1999). The main idea underlying it is that, although emotion prototypes themselves are not universal, there exists a basic set of uni-versal semantic primitives—in Wierzbicka’s (1999: 36) words: “the alphabet of human thoughts”—through which all human thoughts and concepts can be communicated in language. The set contains concepts such as the English Substantives (e.g., I, you, thing, body), Deter-miners (e.g., this, all), Attributes (e.g., good, bad), Time (e.g., when, after, before), Space (e.g.,

where, above), etc., with equivalents in every language. Parallel to this set, there exists a basic universal set of grammatical patterns in which the universal lexical primitives can be accom-modated. This results in a set of basic schemas, i.e., sentences, which can be used in every language of the world. The grammatical patterns can be combined to form prototypical cogni-tive scenarios of emotion states. These prototypes are culture-dependent, but the semantic primitives that form them are universal. An example is a basic schema of the meaning of ‘sad-ness’ in (8), as presented in English (Wierzbicka 1999: 39, italics in the source). (8) sadness (e.g., X feels sad) (a) X feels something (b) sometimes a person thinks: (c) “I know: something bad happened (d) I don’t want things like this to happen (e) I can’t think now: I will do something because of this (f) I know that I can’t do anything” (g) because of this, this person feels something bad (h) X feels something like this The application of the NSM in emotion study is based on a set of 11 working hypotheses that resulted from the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural evidence of different studies. The first of these hypotheses is the following: “All languages have a word for FEEL.” (Wierzbicka 1999: 275, caps in the source). The other hypotheses refer to the evident universality of a link between feelings and cognition, such as evaluation (i.e., good or bad, attitude towards a situation, and actions), words referring to bodily expressions such as ‘smile’ and ‘cry’, facial expressions of emotions, interjections, some emotion terms, a description of feelings via bodily symptoms, a link between the description of feelings and bodily sensations, the use of figurative language to describe feelings, and an alternation of grammatical constructions in the description of feel-ings. Emotions can be studied and cross-linguistically compared by using these universal ele-ments or primitives in the description. This, according to Wierzbicka, makes English easily translatable into any other language, to present an emotion term in that language. Criticism of the NSM addresses different aspects of the theory. Kövecses & Palmer (1999), for example, criticised the syntactic constraint on meaning that the basic schemas create, argu-ing that basic concepts should be independent of syntax. Dor (2015) questioned the universality of attributes such as good and bad. His criticism can be illustrated by the Ifaluk fago ‘compas-sion/love/sadness’ (Lutz 1988). As the English translation shows, there is no equivalent of fago in English, and a combination of three words, ‘compassion’, ‘love’, and ‘sadness’, is the closest we can come to an optimal translation. In English terms, this complex concept consists of both positive and negative elements, and, thus, neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ can be used in a schema of this emotion in the NSM theory. Moreover, the notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in relation to fago may be irrelevant to the experience and conception of this emotion, as, according to Lutz (1988), the use of this word in Ifaluk is driven by social contexts that are unique to the Ifaluk culture. In fact, already the first working hypotheses on the basis of which the NSM is applied to the study of emotion is problematic, namely “All languages have a word for FEEL.” Biblical



While the relevance of culture to conceptualisation of emotion is not in doubt, Geeraerts & Grondelaers’s (1995) critique of Kövecses & Lakoff’s scenario raises a question about the very source of the four humours doctrine they defend. Regardless of the lack of cross-linguistic evidence in Kövecses (1986) and other studies on metaphors in the 1980s and early 1990s that may have led to the critique, it is not clear how the classical doctrine of the four humours emerged in the first place. It is not impossible that it was (at least partially) based on the met-aphorical conceptualisation of physiological processes that originated from the same experien-tial conceptualisation about which Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) are sceptical. The doctrine began gradually to lose its hegemony in the Renaissance, when new empirical evidence became available, and, since the middle of the 19th century, it is no longer followed in medicine. The lack of valid empirical evidence in European antiquity and the Middle Ages suggests that the doctrine could be based on beliefs and conceptions, which, at least partially, were based on physiological experience and perception. It is, thus, likely that experience-based cognitive pro-cesses, such as imagination or abstraction, might have been useful instruments in scientific theorising. This point can be illustrated with another outdated theory and its reflection on lan-guage. In their paper, Geeraerts & Grondelaers (1995) explain their view by comparing the concep-tualisation of anger as hot fluid in a container to the English ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’. They argue that these expressions are still used in English in spite of the invalidity of the geocentric para-digm (according to which the Earth and planets revolve around the sun) they originate from. The geocentric paradigm was common until the Copernican Revolution, but ‘sunrise’ and ‘sun-set’ have remained in the language as dead metaphors that do not reflect natural laws or phys-ical experience, but an outdated theory or belief. It seems, however, that the existence of these dead metaphors, in fact, reflects a clear human physical experience, namely visual perception, although this experience is not consistent with natural laws. In human visible perception it is the sun that revolves, seen as moving up and down, and not the Earth. Thus, the universal physical experience is not necessarily the same thing as natural laws, but it is the way humans perceive and experience these laws. The point to be emphasised is that cultural traditions and universal physical experience are not easily distinguished from each other as two different sources of emotion conceptualisation. Cultural traditions emerge on the basis of human experience of all kinds, e.g., physical, psychological, geographical, social, etc. Hence, conceptualisation of emotion, and conceptualisation in general, presumably includes aspects of human experience within spe-cific cultures and which may be partly universal. In an attempt to overcome the dichotomy of cultural/universal experience, and to provide an alternative to the dominance of English in semantic investigation, Wierzbicka developed the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), as a tool for cross-linguistic semantic examination (see an overview in Wierzbicka 1999). The NSM is related to the broader core-meaning view of emotion conceptualisation (see Kövecses & Palmer 1999). The main idea underlying it is that, although emotion prototypes themselves are not universal, there exists a basic set of uni-versal semantic primitives—in Wierzbicka’s (1999: 36) words: “the alphabet of human thoughts”—through which all human thoughts and concepts can be communicated in language. The set contains concepts such as the English Substantives (e.g., I, you, thing, body), Deter-miners (e.g., this, all), Attributes (e.g., good, bad), Time (e.g., when, after, before), Space (e.g.,

where, above), etc., with equivalents in every language. Parallel to this set, there exists a basic universal set of grammatical patterns in which the universal lexical primitives can be accom-modated. This results in a set of basic schemas, i.e., sentences, which can be used in every language of the world. The grammatical patterns can be combined to form prototypical cogni-tive scenarios of emotion states. These prototypes are culture-dependent, but the semantic primitives that form them are universal. An example is a basic schema of the meaning of ‘sad-ness’ in (8), as presented in English (Wierzbicka 1999: 39, italics in the source). (8) sadness (e.g., X feels sad) (a) X feels something (b) sometimes a person thinks: (c) “I know: something bad happened (d) I don’t want things like this to happen (e) I can’t think now: I will do something because of this (f) I know that I can’t do anything” (g) because of this, this person feels something bad (h) X feels something like this The application of the NSM in emotion study is based on a set of 11 working hypotheses that resulted from the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural evidence of different studies. The first of these hypotheses is the following: “All languages have a word for FEEL.” (Wierzbicka 1999: 275, caps in the source). The other hypotheses refer to the evident universality of a link between feelings and cognition, such as evaluation (i.e., good or bad, attitude towards a situation, and actions), words referring to bodily expressions such as ‘smile’ and ‘cry’, facial expressions of emotions, interjections, some emotion terms, a description of feelings via bodily symptoms, a link between the description of feelings and bodily sensations, the use of figurative language to describe feelings, and an alternation of grammatical constructions in the description of feel-ings. Emotions can be studied and cross-linguistically compared by using these universal ele-ments or primitives in the description. This, according to Wierzbicka, makes English easily translatable into any other language, to present an emotion term in that language. Criticism of the NSM addresses different aspects of the theory. Kövecses & Palmer (1999), for example, criticised the syntactic constraint on meaning that the basic schemas create, argu-ing that basic concepts should be independent of syntax. Dor (2015) questioned the universality of attributes such as good and bad. His criticism can be illustrated by the Ifaluk fago ‘compas-sion/love/sadness’ (Lutz 1988). As the English translation shows, there is no equivalent of fago in English, and a combination of three words, ‘compassion’, ‘love’, and ‘sadness’, is the closest we can come to an optimal translation. In English terms, this complex concept consists of both positive and negative elements, and, thus, neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ can be used in a schema of this emotion in the NSM theory. Moreover, the notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in relation to fago may be irrelevant to the experience and conception of this emotion, as, according to Lutz (1988), the use of this word in Ifaluk is driven by social contexts that are unique to the Ifaluk culture. In fact, already the first working hypotheses on the basis of which the NSM is applied to the study of emotion is problematic, namely “All languages have a word for FEEL.” Biblical


Chapter 2 ׀ 30

Hebrew, for example, does not seem to have a specific word for ‘feel’, either physical or emo-tional.9 The critique of the NSM above hints at some of the conflicting elements in this theory. While rejecting the English-based universality of emotional concepts, based on a presumed universal experience that is implied from different studies on emotion, the NSM is based on universal lexical primitives. If, as assumed here, language and (cognitive) experience are integrated, then it is not clear how the conceptual role of universal experience in meaning differs from that of universal lexical primitives. In other words, whereas the NSM aims at emphasising cross-cul-tural differences, it actually relies on universality. This conflict reflects the relevance of both universal experience and cultural differences to the meaning and conceptualisation of emotion. It is by all means clear that cross-linguistic differences in the lexicon of emotion show the relevance of cultural differences to conceptualisation. Palmer (1996: 109) emphasised this point, arguing that “the view that emotions are culturally constructed should not be taken as denying that there may be some irreducible biopsychological configurations of emotions (e.g., joy, fear) that are essentially universal. But no sharp analytic distinction among emotions, cog-nition, and discourse is justified.” Furthermore, different studies on emotions reveal tight and complex relationships between social structures and systems and emotions. Cultural experience and traditions, it seems, are inseparable from social structures, with their social interactions and practices, and there exists a mutual influence between such structures and the language of emotion. This can be understood as the sociocultural cognition or conceptualisation of emotion, and it is the topic of the following section. 2.3.2 The sociocultural cognition of emotion The sociocultural cognition of emotion refers in the present context to a bidirectional process, in which both the sociocultural motivation or function underlying the use of emotion language, and the influence of emotion language on the sociocultural structure mutually operate. The sociocultural cognition of emotion was initially approached in ethnographic studies, during which different registers and forms of spoken and written language are collected and recorded. This methodological approach enables the researcher to have an intimate knowledge of the culture they are studying, and provides maximal access to the contexts of language use. Two of the pioneering ethnographic studies on emotion are Rosaldo’s (1983) study on shame in Ilongot (the Philippines) and Lutz’s (1982, 1988) work on song ‘justifiable anger’ in Ifaluk. Rosaldo (1983) described how the use of ‘shame’ in the Ilongot language is related to equality and avoiding conflicts in kin relationships. She argued that “For Ilongots, shame orders rela-tionship. It keeps anger from disrupting the cooperative bonds of kin” (Rosaldo 1983: 149). Shame, she explained, is necessary for maturity because it stimulates learning and achieve-ments (that is, striving to avoid shame drives achievements). For adults, however, shame is such a significant feeling that it must be avoided, because otherwise it can damage the social

9 One occurrence of the root ḥwš )שוח( , in Eccl 2:25, encodes a positive feeling that in the specific context may be related to contentment or satisfaction (often translated as ‘enjoy’).

balance based on cooperation between socially equal members of the community. Lutz (1982, 1988) showed how the function and the meaning of the concept song ‘justifiable anger’ changes according to the social status of the individual who uses this term. Accordingly, the term song is often attributed to adult members of the society (e.g., chiefs, older women in the household) to express their negative evaluation of misbehaviour of children as well as adults who violate norms. In these situations, expressing song is meant to evoke fear in those members of the society that violate the norms, which is necessary for a moral society. Another example from the work of Lutz (1982, 1988), that was already mentioned above, is the use of fago ‘compas-sion/love/sadness’, a complex concept related to specific contexts and social identities, as re-flected in language use. Fago, Lutz (1988) argued, is used in Ifaluk as a reaction to the experi-ence of a physical or mental discomfort of others, such as illness, or being separated from family members. Those who experience and express fago are relatively stronger community members (at the time of the event) and, therefore, they express responsibility and care. The emergence of fago thus strengthens social values of responsibility and mutual care. Studies like those of Rosaldo and (especially) Lutz represent a much broader social-con-structionist approach to emotions in the disciplines of philosophy, psychology, and anthropol-ogy. This approach pays particular attention to the sociocultural constitution of emotion and the social functions of emotions. According to Lutz, emotions are structured by culture and, as such, they are “elements of local ideological practices”. The concepts of emotion, she argued, “can more profitably be viewed as serving complex communicative, moral, and cultural pur-poses rather than simply as labels for internal states whose nature or essence is presumed to be universal” (Lutz 1988: 5). This and similar ideas echo to a certain extent the work of Radcliffe-Brown (1922: 233–34), who asserted that “a society depends for its existence on the presence in the mind of its members of a certain system of sentiments by which the conduct of the individual is regulated in conformity with the needs of the society”. These human sentiments, he added, “are not innate but are developed in the individual by the action of the society upon him” (Radcliffe-Brown 1922: 234). The relevance of this idea for the present discussion is the shift in focus from the (physiological, psychological) individual to the social meaning of emo-tions (see also Averill 1980; Armon-Jones 1986; Harré 1986; Besnier 1990; Batic 2011). The examples from the studies of Rosaldo (1983) and Lutz (1982, 1988) also represent a specific strategy, namely a focus on social discourse, which is dedicated to the complexity of social situations and interactions, and regards emotions as sociocultural phenomena (see Abu-Lughod & Lutz (Eds.) 1990: 6–10). Lutz (1988: 7), in fact, saw emotions as “a form of dis-course”. The understanding of language as social and, consequently, approaching emotion lin-guistically are central motives of this strategy. Discourse, in this view, goes beyond speech as a sociolinguistic object of examination; rather, it also contains other sociocultural aspects of language use, such as rhetoric and poetry. Accordingly, emotions are studied as discourse and, more specifically, as social practices or sociocultural manifestations rather than as concepts that are expressed, carried, or shaped by discourse. The presence of emotions in (verbal) social interactions implies their social essence among other characteristics, such as inner state or ex-perience. Lutz (1988) and Abu-Lughod & Lutz (1990) identified a shift in the understanding of emotion entailed by this strategy, namely from an individual inner state or experience to a social experience and from regarding emotions as expressive means to regarding them as prag-matic acts and communicative performances. In fact, they asserted, emotions and discourse



Hebrew, for example, does not seem to have a specific word for ‘feel’, either physical or emo-tional.9 The critique of the NSM above hints at some of the conflicting elements in this theory. While rejecting the English-based universality of emotional concepts, based on a presumed universal experience that is implied from different studies on emotion, the NSM is based on universal lexical primitives. If, as assumed here, language and (cognitive) experience are integrated, then it is not clear how the conceptual role of universal experience in meaning differs from that of universal lexical primitives. In other words, whereas the NSM aims at emphasising cross-cul-tural differences, it actually relies on universality. This conflict reflects the relevance of both universal experience and cultural differences to the meaning and conceptualisation of emotion. It is by all means clear that cross-linguistic differences in the lexicon of emotion show the relevance of cultural differences to conceptualisation. Palmer (1996: 109) emphasised this point, arguing that “the view that emotions are culturally constructed should not be taken as denying that there may be some irreducible biopsychological configurations of emotions (e.g., joy, fear) that are essentially universal. But no sharp analytic distinction among emotions, cog-nition, and discourse is justified.” Furthermore, different studies on emotions reveal tight and complex relationships between social structures and systems and emotions. Cultural experience and traditions, it seems, are inseparable from social structures, with their social interactions and practices, and there exists a mutual influence between such structures and the language of emotion. This can be understood as the sociocultural cognition or conceptualisation of emotion, and it is the topic of the following section. 2.3.2 The sociocultural cognition of emotion The sociocultural cognition of emotion refers in the present context to a bidirectional process, in which both the sociocultural motivation or function underlying the use of emotion language, and the influence of emotion language on the sociocultural structure mutually operate. The sociocultural cognition of emotion was initially approached in ethnographic studies, during which different registers and forms of spoken and written language are collected and recorded. This methodological approach enables the researcher to have an intimate knowledge of the culture they are studying, and provides maximal access to the contexts of language use. Two of the pioneering ethnographic studies on emotion are Rosaldo’s (1983) study on shame in Ilongot (the Philippines) and Lutz’s (1982, 1988) work on song ‘justifiable anger’ in Ifaluk. Rosaldo (1983) described how the use of ‘shame’ in the Ilongot language is related to equality and avoiding conflicts in kin relationships. She argued that “For Ilongots, shame orders rela-tionship. It keeps anger from disrupting the cooperative bonds of kin” (Rosaldo 1983: 149). Shame, she explained, is necessary for maturity because it stimulates learning and achieve-ments (that is, striving to avoid shame drives achievements). For adults, however, shame is such a significant feeling that it must be avoided, because otherwise it can damage the social

9 One occurrence of the root ḥwš )שוח( , in Eccl 2:25, encodes a positive feeling that in the specific context may be related to contentment or satisfaction (often translated as ‘enjoy’).

balance based on cooperation between socially equal members of the community. Lutz (1982, 1988) showed how the function and the meaning of the concept song ‘justifiable anger’ changes according to the social status of the individual who uses this term. Accordingly, the term song is often attributed to adult members of the society (e.g., chiefs, older women in the household) to express their negative evaluation of misbehaviour of children as well as adults who violate norms. In these situations, expressing song is meant to evoke fear in those members of the society that violate the norms, which is necessary for a moral society. Another example from the work of Lutz (1982, 1988), that was already mentioned above, is the use of fago ‘compas-sion/love/sadness’, a complex concept related to specific contexts and social identities, as re-flected in language use. Fago, Lutz (1988) argued, is used in Ifaluk as a reaction to the experi-ence of a physical or mental discomfort of others, such as illness, or being separated from family members. Those who experience and express fago are relatively stronger community members (at the time of the event) and, therefore, they express responsibility and care. The emergence of fago thus strengthens social values of responsibility and mutual care. Studies like those of Rosaldo and (especially) Lutz represent a much broader social-con-structionist approach to emotions in the disciplines of philosophy, psychology, and anthropol-ogy. This approach pays particular attention to the sociocultural constitution of emotion and the social functions of emotions. According to Lutz, emotions are structured by culture and, as such, they are “elements of local ideological practices”. The concepts of emotion, she argued, “can more profitably be viewed as serving complex communicative, moral, and cultural pur-poses rather than simply as labels for internal states whose nature or essence is presumed to be universal” (Lutz 1988: 5). This and similar ideas echo to a certain extent the work of Radcliffe-Brown (1922: 233–34), who asserted that “a society depends for its existence on the presence in the mind of its members of a certain system of sentiments by which the conduct of the individual is regulated in conformity with the needs of the society”. These human sentiments, he added, “are not innate but are developed in the individual by the action of the society upon him” (Radcliffe-Brown 1922: 234). The relevance of this idea for the present discussion is the shift in focus from the (physiological, psychological) individual to the social meaning of emo-tions (see also Averill 1980; Armon-Jones 1986; Harré 1986; Besnier 1990; Batic 2011). The examples from the studies of Rosaldo (1983) and Lutz (1982, 1988) also represent a specific strategy, namely a focus on social discourse, which is dedicated to the complexity of social situations and interactions, and regards emotions as sociocultural phenomena (see Abu-Lughod & Lutz (Eds.) 1990: 6–10). Lutz (1988: 7), in fact, saw emotions as “a form of dis-course”. The understanding of language as social and, consequently, approaching emotion lin-guistically are central motives of this strategy. Discourse, in this view, goes beyond speech as a sociolinguistic object of examination; rather, it also contains other sociocultural aspects of language use, such as rhetoric and poetry. Accordingly, emotions are studied as discourse and, more specifically, as social practices or sociocultural manifestations rather than as concepts that are expressed, carried, or shaped by discourse. The presence of emotions in (verbal) social interactions implies their social essence among other characteristics, such as inner state or ex-perience. Lutz (1988) and Abu-Lughod & Lutz (1990) identified a shift in the understanding of emotion entailed by this strategy, namely from an individual inner state or experience to a social experience and from regarding emotions as expressive means to regarding them as prag-matic acts and communicative performances. In fact, they asserted, emotions and discourse


Chapter 2 ׀ 32

should not be distinguished as private (emotion) vs. public (discourse). Instead, emotions are intertwined with social life. Abu-Lughod & Lutz (1990) argued that studies on different languages indicate that socia-bility and power relations are two pivotal and decisive aspects of emotion discourse. Sociability is shown in the salient presence of emotion language in contexts of solidarity. The power as-pects are indicated by the influence of power on discourse participants and on contexts of emo-tion, both in content and the social status of participants. Power relations thus determine both what can or must be said and who can say it. Power relations clearly illustrate the mutual in-fluence of social structures and emotion language. Whereas such power relations drive a hier-archical use of emotion discourse, emotion discourse driven by power relations strengthens and perhaps even establishes power relations. When elderly members of the Ifaluk society use song ‘justifiable anger’ to express their disapproval of children or other adult’s misbehaviour, they establish the association between social order and this emotion word. On the one hand, the social hierarchy entitles them, and not other members, to express song, while on the other hand, expressing this emotion reifies their higher social status and also establishes a link to morality, as song evokes fear in those to whom it is directed, and fear is seen by the Ifaluk people as necessary for a moral society. Apparently, this prototypical model of song ‘justifiable anger’ is based on social values rather than on a psychological process (and scenario) of the individuals who experience it. Violation of social values and reaction to this violation drive the emergence of this model in discourse. The use of song is thus sociocultural, rather than inner individual, emphasizing particularly significant aspects of the culture and society of the Ifaluk (see also Besnier 1990 on the relation between language and power asymmetry). This may be seen as a contrast to Kövecses & Lakoff’s (Kövecses’s 1986) scenario of prototypical anger in American English that was described in the previous section. A better interpretation is that this view shifts the attention from the individual to the social aspect of emotions. The difference between these two examples goes beyond the (by now possibly obvious) cultural differences in emotion language. In addition to sharpening the shift from the individual to the social in emotion conceptualisation, it also indicates the necessity of a much broader perspective than cross-cultural differences. Cross-cultural differences in emotion language single out culture-based conceptualisation, such as, for example, different body parts or different physiological processes involved in emotion experience cross linguistically, but the difference between song and anger, for the sake of illustration, shows how cross-cultural differences are more than de-tails in a scenario or a model; rather, they reflect the significance of social structures in the language of emotion, and the mutual effect the two share. Rosaldo (1990) shares this view on the centrality of discourse functions rather than cognitive and physical states in the meaning of emotion language. From his cultural linguistic view, Palmer’s (1996: 109) definition of emotions does not give discourse such a central place: “emotions are complex configurations of goal-driven imagery that govern feeling states and scenarios, including discourse scenarios”. Discourse, according to Palmer, is not the main cultural region where emotions manifest themselves, but certainly one of the regions, as his own work shows. For instance, Palmer & Brown (1998), found that Tagalog speakers in Las Vegas, Nevada typically talk about emotions in terms of the social scenarios that cause them rather than in terms of cognitive states, physical sensations, or feel-ings. Scenarios are central in both Lutz’s (1988) and Palmer’s (1996) views, but, whereas

Palmer regards scenarios as part of the mental representations (see the analytical concepts above), for Lutz scenarios have a clear social character. This is related to the more general difference between the two views, namely the inclusion of universal (physical) experience in the conceptualisation of emotions by Palmer over against the sheer sociocultural approach of Lutz. As the discussion in the previous section shows, Palmer’s more inclusive view does not necessarily contradict Lutz’s view but it does enable a wider scope. Kövecses & Palmer (1999: 252–53) further highlighted this view and argued that, although “emotions are emergent from physical experience”, they are more frequently “evoked by social events than by physical ones”, and, therefore, “emergent emotion concepts must blend and integrate psychological and socio-cultural experience”. They suggested a synthesis between the universal experiential and the sociocultural views as a more proper approach than simply choosing one view:

[I]t is necessary, where emotional complexes exist as stable socio-cultural/psycho-logical entities, to describe them in all their specificity, insofar as practical con-straints permit. Otherwise, one’s theory may predict emotional states and language that never actually occur in real cultures. The complete description of culturally specific social scenarios in emotion concepts does not preclude one from seeking cross-cultural communalities or universals in either the psychological or the social content of emotion concepts.

Accordingly, this emotion concept is a kind of organised configuration that involves elements of all types of experience (i.e., social, cognitive, and physical) and imagery that concerns lan-guage and discourse. Without ignoring the synthesis suggested by Kövecses & Palmer (1999), emotion discourse, in the broadest sense of the word, is the most suitable source of investigation of emotion in language as a social practice. It was already shown how discourse can serve as the basis of different social relations and functions, such as power-relations. Another example of this is the correlation between emotion discourse and, in particular, power-relations, for example, gender ideology in American English, or the unmarked syntactic gender in English (see Lutz 1990). Brenneis (1990) presented two ways in which emotion discourse is associated with sociability in Hindi-speaking Indians in Fiji: (i) social, rather than individual, emotions are evaluated as positive, (ii) only emotions recognized as social, e.g., friendship, may be enacted in social per-formances. As a result, women, who do not participate in certain performances, are in fact precluded from having a certain emotional experience. Similarly, Trawick (1990) showed how an untouchable Tamil woman from South India may use an artistic technique of singing as a strategy for challenging those who cast her out. Her technique involves deviation from the grammatical as well as social code. Sharifian (2005) showed the difference in the conceptual-isation of the word ‘shame’ between Anglo-Australian and Aboriginal students. Whereas the former associates ‘shame’ with ‘wrong-doing’ and ‘feeling of guilt’, for Aboriginal students ‘shame’ is “associated with situations in which a person is singled out from the group, for either praise or punishment, or with the respect one has for elders, sacred places, etc. […] Novelty of experience is also another factor which often leads to the discomfort expressed as ‘being shamed’.”



should not be distinguished as private (emotion) vs. public (discourse). Instead, emotions are intertwined with social life. Abu-Lughod & Lutz (1990) argued that studies on different languages indicate that socia-bility and power relations are two pivotal and decisive aspects of emotion discourse. Sociability is shown in the salient presence of emotion language in contexts of solidarity. The power as-pects are indicated by the influence of power on discourse participants and on contexts of emo-tion, both in content and the social status of participants. Power relations thus determine both what can or must be said and who can say it. Power relations clearly illustrate the mutual in-fluence of social structures and emotion language. Whereas such power relations drive a hier-archical use of emotion discourse, emotion discourse driven by power relations strengthens and perhaps even establishes power relations. When elderly members of the Ifaluk society use song ‘justifiable anger’ to express their disapproval of children or other adult’s misbehaviour, they establish the association between social order and this emotion word. On the one hand, the social hierarchy entitles them, and not other members, to express song, while on the other hand, expressing this emotion reifies their higher social status and also establishes a link to morality, as song evokes fear in those to whom it is directed, and fear is seen by the Ifaluk people as necessary for a moral society. Apparently, this prototypical model of song ‘justifiable anger’ is based on social values rather than on a psychological process (and scenario) of the individuals who experience it. Violation of social values and reaction to this violation drive the emergence of this model in discourse. The use of song is thus sociocultural, rather than inner individual, emphasizing particularly significant aspects of the culture and society of the Ifaluk (see also Besnier 1990 on the relation between language and power asymmetry). This may be seen as a contrast to Kövecses & Lakoff’s (Kövecses’s 1986) scenario of prototypical anger in American English that was described in the previous section. A better interpretation is that this view shifts the attention from the individual to the social aspect of emotions. The difference between these two examples goes beyond the (by now possibly obvious) cultural differences in emotion language. In addition to sharpening the shift from the individual to the social in emotion conceptualisation, it also indicates the necessity of a much broader perspective than cross-cultural differences. Cross-cultural differences in emotion language single out culture-based conceptualisation, such as, for example, different body parts or different physiological processes involved in emotion experience cross linguistically, but the difference between song and anger, for the sake of illustration, shows how cross-cultural differences are more than de-tails in a scenario or a model; rather, they reflect the significance of social structures in the language of emotion, and the mutual effect the two share. Rosaldo (1990) shares this view on the centrality of discourse functions rather than cognitive and physical states in the meaning of emotion language. From his cultural linguistic view, Palmer’s (1996: 109) definition of emotions does not give discourse such a central place: “emotions are complex configurations of goal-driven imagery that govern feeling states and scenarios, including discourse scenarios”. Discourse, according to Palmer, is not the main cultural region where emotions manifest themselves, but certainly one of the regions, as his own work shows. For instance, Palmer & Brown (1998), found that Tagalog speakers in Las Vegas, Nevada typically talk about emotions in terms of the social scenarios that cause them rather than in terms of cognitive states, physical sensations, or feel-ings. Scenarios are central in both Lutz’s (1988) and Palmer’s (1996) views, but, whereas

Palmer regards scenarios as part of the mental representations (see the analytical concepts above), for Lutz scenarios have a clear social character. This is related to the more general difference between the two views, namely the inclusion of universal (physical) experience in the conceptualisation of emotions by Palmer over against the sheer sociocultural approach of Lutz. As the discussion in the previous section shows, Palmer’s more inclusive view does not necessarily contradict Lutz’s view but it does enable a wider scope. Kövecses & Palmer (1999: 252–53) further highlighted this view and argued that, although “emotions are emergent from physical experience”, they are more frequently “evoked by social events than by physical ones”, and, therefore, “emergent emotion concepts must blend and integrate psychological and socio-cultural experience”. They suggested a synthesis between the universal experiential and the sociocultural views as a more proper approach than simply choosing one view:

[I]t is necessary, where emotional complexes exist as stable socio-cultural/psycho-logical entities, to describe them in all their specificity, insofar as practical con-straints permit. Otherwise, one’s theory may predict emotional states and language that never actually occur in real cultures. The complete description of culturally specific social scenarios in emotion concepts does not preclude one from seeking cross-cultural communalities or universals in either the psychological or the social content of emotion concepts.

Accordingly, this emotion concept is a kind of organised configuration that involves elements of all types of experience (i.e., social, cognitive, and physical) and imagery that concerns lan-guage and discourse. Without ignoring the synthesis suggested by Kövecses & Palmer (1999), emotion discourse, in the broadest sense of the word, is the most suitable source of investigation of emotion in language as a social practice. It was already shown how discourse can serve as the basis of different social relations and functions, such as power-relations. Another example of this is the correlation between emotion discourse and, in particular, power-relations, for example, gender ideology in American English, or the unmarked syntactic gender in English (see Lutz 1990). Brenneis (1990) presented two ways in which emotion discourse is associated with sociability in Hindi-speaking Indians in Fiji: (i) social, rather than individual, emotions are evaluated as positive, (ii) only emotions recognized as social, e.g., friendship, may be enacted in social per-formances. As a result, women, who do not participate in certain performances, are in fact precluded from having a certain emotional experience. Similarly, Trawick (1990) showed how an untouchable Tamil woman from South India may use an artistic technique of singing as a strategy for challenging those who cast her out. Her technique involves deviation from the grammatical as well as social code. Sharifian (2005) showed the difference in the conceptual-isation of the word ‘shame’ between Anglo-Australian and Aboriginal students. Whereas the former associates ‘shame’ with ‘wrong-doing’ and ‘feeling of guilt’, for Aboriginal students ‘shame’ is “associated with situations in which a person is singled out from the group, for either praise or punishment, or with the respect one has for elders, sacred places, etc. […] Novelty of experience is also another factor which often leads to the discomfort expressed as ‘being shamed’.”


Chapter 2 ׀ 34

These studies show that it is not only possible, but in fact often necessary to approach emo-tions and their polysemy as (a set of) social scenarios or models rather than inner states. The (universal) experiential elements of emotion concepts may not always be salient or present in these scenarios and models, but if they are relevant to the conceptualisation they will neverthe-less be part of it. This is the approach taken in the present thesis, which treats ’hb ‘love’ as a sociocultural concept within the discourse of Biblical Hebrew without excluding the physical and cognitive aspects of its experience that may be present to varying degrees.

Chapter 3. Emotion and Biblical Hebrew 3.1 Introduction Investigating emotion language in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is challenging in at least two main prospects, namely the volume and character of the source text and the cultural differences be-tween the ancient and modern languages. First, as a language, BH is a limited-in-volume an-cient written text of different types and not a living spoken language or a written register thereof. The access to meaning is, therefore, dependent on the biblical context, which does not reflect all linguistic properties and registers of the ancient spoken language. The second, and perhaps more challenging, prospect concerns the understanding of emotions in BH regardless of the meaning of emotions in modern languages and cultures. The issue of the translation of emotion terms was already mentioned in the previous chapter (2.3.1), where the role of culture in the meaning of words was discussed. As Kruger (2015: 412) shows, this is not different in the case of BH, which, in large part, is also dependent on old translations of the Hebrew Bible, and which reflect conceptions of the target languages. In particular, the ex-pression of what may be interpreted as emotion in BH is decided according to modern Western terms and conceptions, and is often analysed as an individual state or reaction to an event, such as fear, anger, love, and hate. This may in some cases be part of the meaning, but often it is only a small or less significant part of it. Hence, though it is often possible to identify emotional experience in BH, such experience does not necessarily resemble emotional experience as it is understood in modern cultures and expressed in modern languages. The challenge is, however, greater than that. Biblical Hebrew (BH) does not have nouns equivalent to ‘emotion’, ‘feeling’, ‘sentiment’ or ‘affect’, nor does it have words of other grammatical classes that convey these notions as they are expressed in English and other modern languages. The only stem that seems to denote something like ‘to feel good’ or ‘to enjoy a feeling’ in two of its occurrences is שוח (ḥwš) (Job 20:2; Eccl 2:25). This not only marks a fundamental difference between BH and modern languages, but also raises the question whether it is even possible to talk about emo-tions in BH, or if it is simply wrong to attempt to understand BH in terms of modern language and thought. More specifically, the issue of the translatability of emotion words seems to be highly relevant for BH, as it is not merely a translation of words which are agreed to belong to one basic category (i.e., emotion), but rather the entire existence of this as a category in BH is far from certain. Kruger (2015: 400) pointed to the absence of an agreed upon basic category ‘emotion’ for BH and the further uncertainty in regard to the number of basic emotions that may constitute the category of ‘emotion’. However, the presence of different emotions in the language may imply the existence of a common concept, even if this concept is not expressed explicitly in the language. Mirguet (2016: 446) noted that different emotion words sometimes occur in col-locations with other emotion words and this may in turn imply the existence of a more general category of thought to which these emotions belong; she gave Eccl 9:6 as an example, where love, hate, and jealousy are all mentioned. Moreover, she pointed to the association between


These studies show that it is not only possible, but in fact often necessary to approach emo-tions and their polysemy as (a set of) social scenarios or models rather than inner states. The (universal) experiential elements of emotion concepts may not always be salient or present in these scenarios and models, but if they are relevant to the conceptualisation they will neverthe-less be part of it. This is the approach taken in the present thesis, which treats ’hb ‘love’ as a sociocultural concept within the discourse of Biblical Hebrew without excluding the physical and cognitive aspects of its experience that may be present to varying degrees.

Chapter 3. Emotion and Biblical Hebrew 3.1 Introduction Investigating emotion language in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is challenging in at least two main prospects, namely the volume and character of the source text and the cultural differences be-tween the ancient and modern languages. First, as a language, BH is a limited-in-volume an-cient written text of different types and not a living spoken language or a written register thereof. The access to meaning is, therefore, dependent on the biblical context, which does not reflect all linguistic properties and registers of the ancient spoken language. The second, and perhaps more challenging, prospect concerns the understanding of emotions in BH regardless of the meaning of emotions in modern languages and cultures. The issue of the translation of emotion terms was already mentioned in the previous chapter (2.3.1), where the role of culture in the meaning of words was discussed. As Kruger (2015: 412) shows, this is not different in the case of BH, which, in large part, is also dependent on old translations of the Hebrew Bible, and which reflect conceptions of the target languages. In particular, the ex-pression of what may be interpreted as emotion in BH is decided according to modern Western terms and conceptions, and is often analysed as an individual state or reaction to an event, such as fear, anger, love, and hate. This may in some cases be part of the meaning, but often it is only a small or less significant part of it. Hence, though it is often possible to identify emotional experience in BH, such experience does not necessarily resemble emotional experience as it is understood in modern cultures and expressed in modern languages. The challenge is, however, greater than that. Biblical Hebrew (BH) does not have nouns equivalent to ‘emotion’, ‘feeling’, ‘sentiment’ or ‘affect’, nor does it have words of other grammatical classes that convey these notions as they are expressed in English and other modern languages. The only stem that seems to denote something like ‘to feel good’ or ‘to enjoy a feeling’ in two of its occurrences is שוח (ḥwš) (Job 20:2; Eccl 2:25). This not only marks a fundamental difference between BH and modern languages, but also raises the question whether it is even possible to talk about emo-tions in BH, or if it is simply wrong to attempt to understand BH in terms of modern language and thought. More specifically, the issue of the translatability of emotion words seems to be highly relevant for BH, as it is not merely a translation of words which are agreed to belong to one basic category (i.e., emotion), but rather the entire existence of this as a category in BH is far from certain. Kruger (2015: 400) pointed to the absence of an agreed upon basic category ‘emotion’ for BH and the further uncertainty in regard to the number of basic emotions that may constitute the category of ‘emotion’. However, the presence of different emotions in the language may imply the existence of a common concept, even if this concept is not expressed explicitly in the language. Mirguet (2016: 446) noted that different emotion words sometimes occur in col-locations with other emotion words and this may in turn imply the existence of a more general category of thought to which these emotions belong; she gave Eccl 9:6 as an example, where love, hate, and jealousy are all mentioned. Moreover, she pointed to the association between


Chapter 3 ׀ 36

emotions and non-verbal expressions of experience, such as sounds and the use of music in-struments to express joy, that is indicated by the collocations of emotion words with descrip-tions of such experiences. Lasater (2017) argued against the attribution of the notion of ‘emo-tion’ as a general psychological category of feeling—as defined by the Scottish philosophers David Hume (1711–1776) and Thomas Brown (1778–1820)—for what is interpreted as emo-tions in BH, e.g., fear (of God). He favoured instead something closer to the classical ‘passions and affections’ of ancient Greek, and stressed the differences between the two notions, arguing that the former (i.e., passive impressions or mental states) is significantly distanced from the biblical phenomena which involve reason and action. Lasater illustrated his claim with exam-ples of the use of yir’at yāhwəh ‘fear of Yhwh’ in Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Proverbs, show-ing that it involves rationality and intentionality and by no means denotes merely the mental state of fear. Lasater’s general claim regarding the applicability of the notion of ‘emotions’ to BH and his analysis of the use of yr’ ‘fear’ in the context of divinity adds up. However, his approach, based on classical and modern philosophy, ignores the evolution of the notion of ‘emotions’ since the 18th and 19th centuries in different disciplines including in language use. The clear body-mind dichotomy inferred from the definitions of Hume and Brown is also not necessarily so obvious in contemporary discourse about emotions in modern languages. The cognitive linguistic studies discussed in the previous chapter show that the experience of what we call ‘emotions’ in English and its equivalents in other languages is quite different from the definitions of Hume and Brown (i.e., passive impressions or mental states). Lutz (1988: 177–81) very convincingly showed a fundamental difference between the Ifaluk and English-speak-ing North Americans in their conceptions of emotion. Whereas both the experience of song ‘justifiable anger’ and the English ‘anger’ involve emotional response and evaluation (i.e., cog-nition), the cause of the former is restricted to the context of social unjust, while American English anger may be caused by personal restraint or frustration when one cannot reach his/her goal regardless of the reason. Although in both languages, but more explicitly in Ifaluk, the terms are associated with the violation of morality, the specific nature of the violation (i.e., what is being violated and how it is violated) is culture-dependent. Thus, the cause of song and ‘anger’ responses differs between the two languages. The use of the term ‘emotions’ to describe the complex experiences in BH, therefore, should not seem problematic, yet simply using the term ‘emotion’ without elaborating its meaning does not solve the problem of the conceptual and linguistic translatability of emotions in BH. Mirguet (2016) offered a more nuanced approach to this problem, arguing that semantic categories such as ‘emotion’ and ‘feeling’, as they are used in modern languages and under-stood in modern cultures, are not at all a part of human experience in BH; rather a much more complex human experience that includes rituals, actions, and physical sensations is expressed in the texts. In other words, Mirguet (2016: 447) argued that different types of experience, which in modern thought are distinguished as emotional, sensory, physical, and intellectual, have loose boundaries in BH. Accordingly, when we refer to such experiences in BH as emo-tions, we should stress the difference between their ancient meaning and that of emotions in modern Western languages and cultures. To summarise, despite reservations about the difficulties in defining emotion as a basic cat-egory and of specific emotions as such in BH, and despite translation issues, it seems plausible to talk about emotions in this language, keeping in mind the differences between the ancient

understanding of them and what is meant by ‘emotions’ in modern languages and cultures. The challenge, therefore, is to understand emotions in BH from the perspective of ancient Israelite culture as much as this is possible on the basis of the limited corpus without falling into the ease of a conceptual transfer from modern cultures and languages. The following section pre-sents the previous approaches that have been taken to understanding emotion in BH. 3.2 Emotions in Biblical Hebrew Biblical Hebrew has terms and (near)synonyms for various emotion(s) with different degrees of association or resemblance to ‘anger’, ‘fear’, ‘grief’, ‘regret’, ’comfort’, ‘joy’, ‘jealousy’, ‘shame’, ‘hatred’, and ‘love’. Biblical emotions usually occur between human individuals and groups, and between humans and God. Human emotions may also be caused by and directed toward animals (e.g., Bil‘am and the donkey in Num 22:27), may occur with animals and in-animate subjects (e.g., Gen 9:2; Joel 2:21, 22), and may be caused by inanimate things (e.g., Jer 14:4; Prov 31:21). Although human and divine emotions are generally described with the same terms, there are often differences in meaning between the two types. These differences may be expressed by the linguistic constructions that are used (e.g., imperative, passive) or by the nature of the cause of emotions. For example, Schlimm (2017: 50) noted that the cause of God’s sadness is always human, and that in human-divine fear-events God is never the experiencer (e.g., subject) of fear. Most of the previous studies of emotions in BH concentrated on one or two related emotions, or else investigated emotions in only one text, e.g., a specific verse(s), chapter(s), or book(s). Other studies have been thematic, i.e., they approached emotions from a specific theme such as ethics (see, for example, Kazen 2017 on disgust). Furthermore, some studies examined the occurrence of certain emotions, regardless of their explicit linguistic expression, based instead on figurative and implicative language use or descriptions of situations, facial expressions, physical sensations, and behaviour. Related to this is emotive experience that is expressed by inner speech or thoughts, of which the seat of the emotion is often the innards (e.g., Jer 4:19; 31:20; Ps 22:14; Job 30:27; Lam 1:20; 2:11) or the heart (e.g., Gen 6:6; Exod 4:14; 1 Sam 2:1; Isa 24:7; Prov 15:13). Emotions are ubiquitous in the biblical texts, from shame and fear in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, to Cain’s anger and envy of Abel, to the fatherly love of Abraham for his son Isaac, to the sorrow and jealousy of childless women in other narratives, to imperatives of fear and love in legal texts, to the expression of sorrow and regret in psalms, and so on. Indeed, emotions are clearly present in all forms of the biblical discourse. Before the last decade of the 20th century and especially since the beginning of the new millennium, emotion was not a significant field of interest in studies of the Hebrew Bible. The first decade of the 21st century marked a shift in perspective, namely from an approach to emo-tions as irrational phenomena or a strict distinction between emotions as affective experience and cognition. More and more recent studies have been taking a cognitive/cultural approach when addressing emotion words, expressions, and events. This shift reflects a more general movement towards cognition within the discipline of psychology in the second half of the 20th century, and subsequently in the fields of anthropology and linguistics. Some of these recent


Emotion and Biblical Hebrew 37 ׀

emotions and non-verbal expressions of experience, such as sounds and the use of music in-struments to express joy, that is indicated by the collocations of emotion words with descrip-tions of such experiences. Lasater (2017) argued against the attribution of the notion of ‘emo-tion’ as a general psychological category of feeling—as defined by the Scottish philosophers David Hume (1711–1776) and Thomas Brown (1778–1820)—for what is interpreted as emo-tions in BH, e.g., fear (of God). He favoured instead something closer to the classical ‘passions and affections’ of ancient Greek, and stressed the differences between the two notions, arguing that the former (i.e., passive impressions or mental states) is significantly distanced from the biblical phenomena which involve reason and action. Lasater illustrated his claim with exam-ples of the use of yir’at yāhwəh ‘fear of Yhwh’ in Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Proverbs, show-ing that it involves rationality and intentionality and by no means denotes merely the mental state of fear. Lasater’s general claim regarding the applicability of the notion of ‘emotions’ to BH and his analysis of the use of yr’ ‘fear’ in the context of divinity adds up. However, his approach, based on classical and modern philosophy, ignores the evolution of the notion of ‘emotions’ since the 18th and 19th centuries in different disciplines including in language use. The clear body-mind dichotomy inferred from the definitions of Hume and Brown is also not necessarily so obvious in contemporary discourse about emotions in modern languages. The cognitive linguistic studies discussed in the previous chapter show that the experience of what we call ‘emotions’ in English and its equivalents in other languages is quite different from the definitions of Hume and Brown (i.e., passive impressions or mental states). Lutz (1988: 177–81) very convincingly showed a fundamental difference between the Ifaluk and English-speak-ing North Americans in their conceptions of emotion. Whereas both the experience of song ‘justifiable anger’ and the English ‘anger’ involve emotional response and evaluation (i.e., cog-nition), the cause of the former is restricted to the context of social unjust, while American English anger may be caused by personal restraint or frustration when one cannot reach his/her goal regardless of the reason. Although in both languages, but more explicitly in Ifaluk, the terms are associated with the violation of morality, the specific nature of the violation (i.e., what is being violated and how it is violated) is culture-dependent. Thus, the cause of song and ‘anger’ responses differs between the two languages. The use of the term ‘emotions’ to describe the complex experiences in BH, therefore, should not seem problematic, yet simply using the term ‘emotion’ without elaborating its meaning does not solve the problem of the conceptual and linguistic translatability of emotions in BH. Mirguet (2016) offered a more nuanced approach to this problem, arguing that semantic categories such as ‘emotion’ and ‘feeling’, as they are used in modern languages and under-stood in modern cultures, are not at all a part of human experience in BH; rather a much more complex human experience that includes rituals, actions, and physical sensations is expressed in the texts. In other words, Mirguet (2016: 447) argued that different types of experience, which in modern thought are distinguished as emotional, sensory, physical, and intellectual, have loose boundaries in BH. Accordingly, when we refer to such experiences in BH as emo-tions, we should stress the difference between their ancient meaning and that of emotions in modern Western languages and cultures. To summarise, despite reservations about the difficulties in defining emotion as a basic cat-egory and of specific emotions as such in BH, and despite translation issues, it seems plausible to talk about emotions in this language, keeping in mind the differences between the ancient

understanding of them and what is meant by ‘emotions’ in modern languages and cultures. The challenge, therefore, is to understand emotions in BH from the perspective of ancient Israelite culture as much as this is possible on the basis of the limited corpus without falling into the ease of a conceptual transfer from modern cultures and languages. The following section pre-sents the previous approaches that have been taken to understanding emotion in BH. 3.2 Emotions in Biblical Hebrew Biblical Hebrew has terms and (near)synonyms for various emotion(s) with different degrees of association or resemblance to ‘anger’, ‘fear’, ‘grief’, ‘regret’, ’comfort’, ‘joy’, ‘jealousy’, ‘shame’, ‘hatred’, and ‘love’. Biblical emotions usually occur between human individuals and groups, and between humans and God. Human emotions may also be caused by and directed toward animals (e.g., Bil‘am and the donkey in Num 22:27), may occur with animals and in-animate subjects (e.g., Gen 9:2; Joel 2:21, 22), and may be caused by inanimate things (e.g., Jer 14:4; Prov 31:21). Although human and divine emotions are generally described with the same terms, there are often differences in meaning between the two types. These differences may be expressed by the linguistic constructions that are used (e.g., imperative, passive) or by the nature of the cause of emotions. For example, Schlimm (2017: 50) noted that the cause of God’s sadness is always human, and that in human-divine fear-events God is never the experiencer (e.g., subject) of fear. Most of the previous studies of emotions in BH concentrated on one or two related emotions, or else investigated emotions in only one text, e.g., a specific verse(s), chapter(s), or book(s). Other studies have been thematic, i.e., they approached emotions from a specific theme such as ethics (see, for example, Kazen 2017 on disgust). Furthermore, some studies examined the occurrence of certain emotions, regardless of their explicit linguistic expression, based instead on figurative and implicative language use or descriptions of situations, facial expressions, physical sensations, and behaviour. Related to this is emotive experience that is expressed by inner speech or thoughts, of which the seat of the emotion is often the innards (e.g., Jer 4:19; 31:20; Ps 22:14; Job 30:27; Lam 1:20; 2:11) or the heart (e.g., Gen 6:6; Exod 4:14; 1 Sam 2:1; Isa 24:7; Prov 15:13). Emotions are ubiquitous in the biblical texts, from shame and fear in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, to Cain’s anger and envy of Abel, to the fatherly love of Abraham for his son Isaac, to the sorrow and jealousy of childless women in other narratives, to imperatives of fear and love in legal texts, to the expression of sorrow and regret in psalms, and so on. Indeed, emotions are clearly present in all forms of the biblical discourse. Before the last decade of the 20th century and especially since the beginning of the new millennium, emotion was not a significant field of interest in studies of the Hebrew Bible. The first decade of the 21st century marked a shift in perspective, namely from an approach to emo-tions as irrational phenomena or a strict distinction between emotions as affective experience and cognition. More and more recent studies have been taking a cognitive/cultural approach when addressing emotion words, expressions, and events. This shift reflects a more general movement towards cognition within the discipline of psychology in the second half of the 20th century, and subsequently in the fields of anthropology and linguistics. Some of these recent


Chapter 3 ׀ 38

studies on emotions in BH followed cognitive-linguistic theories, such as conceptual metaphor and metonymy or prototype theory (see, for example, Kruger 2000; van Wolde 2008; Schlimm 2008 on anger; Kotzé 2004 and Jindo 2011 on fear; King 2010 on distress), or other theories of (cognitive) science (see, for example, Kazen 2017a on disgust). Many of the studies, in fact, involved cultural and cognitive aspects to some extent, for these are generally not necessarily contrasting with a theological approach, but rather are important components thereof. In some cases, the approach to emotions was thematic rather than emotive, that is, such studies examine emotions within a specific theme; for example, Kazen (2017b), who investigated the involve-ment of emotions in ethics and morality. The general approach in research on emotions in BH also reflects the multiple occurrences of emotions in relationships between God and the people of Israel as a group, as well as signif-icant individuals such as kings and other leaders. In his paper on the association between joy and volition, Muffs (1979: 91) asserted that “The religious life of the ancients—Mesopotamian and Hebrew alike—was less a quest for salvation or union with a metapersonal godhead than an ongoing personal relationship, of different degrees of stability and intimacy, between man and his god(s).” Emotions are, in this light, natural elements of such relationships, as, for ex-ample, the influential work of Moran (1963) on ’hb ‘love’ in the context of divinity showed (Moran’s study is elaborated in 3.3.1); see also the different studies on fear (for instance, Wil-son 1995; Kroeze 2004; Jindo 2011; Clines 2003), and Schlimm’s publication (2017) on the relation between emotions and biblical theology and ethics. The following subsections provide concise overviews of findings regarding the conceptual-isation of emotions in the Hebrew Bible. The selection represents mostly recent studies and it is restricted to studies with a linguistic perspective, i.e., studies based on the occurrence of explicit emotion words rather than studies in which emotion-events are inferred from the con-text. 3.2.1 Fear

Fear, expressed by the lexeme yr’ is the first emotion mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in the narrative of the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:10). The first man uses wā’îirā’ ‘I was afraid’ when he answers Yhwh’s call to explain his and the woman’s hiding after hearing Yhwh’s voice. This first occurrence signals a recurring theme in the Hebrew Bible, namely the fear of God, which is typically expressed in the following phrase: yir’at ’ĕlōhîm/yāhwəh. The interpretation of this phrase varies among scholars from a purely mental state, such as fear of death (Clines 2003) and fear of the absolute sovereign (Jindo 2011), to a more complex experience that also in-volves reason and behaviour (see, for example, Gruber 1990; Wilson 1995; Clines 2003; Bosman 2012; Viljoen & Venter 2013). Fear of God symbolises a much broader concept in BH, namely the complex relationship between humans and God, which in Deuteronomy is tightly related to the love of God as expressed by ’hb (see Arnold 2011 on the affective and cognitive aspects of fear and love of God). Kroeze (2004) stressed the complexity of fear of God by the transition from a (more obvious) negative to a positive connotation in the use of the phrase, both of which, he argued, are necessary for the relationship between humans and

God. Obviously these findings are based on specific texts, mostly Deuteronomy, and within the context of divinity. Other types of fear in BH, also expressed by other lexemes (e.g., pḥd, ḥrd) indicate a rich semantic field that consists also of metaphors and metonyms. By employing a cognitive lin-guistic approach and examining the figurative language of fear, Kruger (2001) included phys-ical spontaneous expressions that are involved in the emotional experience. Similar to Kövecses (1990), Kruger (2001: 86) also identified the conceptualisation of fear in BH as a “vicious enemy/opponent”. In a comprehensive study of the semantic field of fear, Kroeze (2004) defined three types of the emotion in BH, namely negative, numinous and positive. Arnold (2011) looked at the semantic field of yr’ and regarded the different senses of the root as a spectrum with the feeling of terror (“pathological anxiety”, i.e., the emotional sense) at one end and “a positive course of action”, which in the context of divinity is the obedience of the commandment to fear Yhwh (p. 564) at the other. The latter is a cognitive sense, but, as Arnold (2011: 566) emphasised, yr’ at this end of the spectrum is by no means unemotional. The emotional component of yr’, Arnold argued, is part of the human-divine relationship re-gardless of the commandment (as shown by Gen 3:10), and the obedience to the commandment is a “by-product” of the general reverence which characterises this relationship (this also links fear expressed by yr’ to ’hb in Deuteronomy, as will be discussed in 3.3). While Arnold did not clearly distinguish between the physical and psychological components of the emotional sense, a later study by Mirguet (2016: 451) observed that the physical sensation is often used to describe fear as the emotion, with both physical and psychological components undistin-guished and embedded within this physical sensation. 3.2.2 Anger Anger is another salient emotion in BH and, like fear, it often concerns the relationship between humans and God. Indeed, many of the earlier studies on anger concentrated on this theme, where anger was mainly expressed by God as a reaction to humans’ sins (see, for instance, Kotzé 2004 and Schlimm 2008 for critical overviews). From a theological point of view, anger is conceptually related to fear and love, with all three playing an important role in the relation-ship between humans and God. Moreover, Schlimm (2017: 49) noted that anger in the Hebrew Bible is strongly associated with God; much more than with humans. Later studies expanded the scope of anger also to other contexts and other theoretical frameworks. Kruger (2000) focused on the figurative language of anger. He applied the conceptual met-aphor theory, in particular Lakoff & Kövecses’s (1987) cultural model of anger in American English. The figurative language of anger, he argued, is based on the general conceptual met-aphor ANGER IS HEAT (IN A CONTAINER), which originates in the physical sensations that are part of the experience of anger. This metaphor may alternate with another conceptual met-aphor, ANGER IS FIRE, and both generate different metonyms, such as ‘my wrath shall come up in my nose’ (Ezek 38:18), which expresses the body heat felt in the face. Other principle conceptions of anger in Kruger’s study are ANGER IS OPPONENT and ANGER IS ANIMAL. In the same vein, Kotzé (2004a) conducted a cognitive linguistic study of the figurative language of anger. He too placed the ANGER IS HEAT metaphor at the centre and summarised his



studies on emotions in BH followed cognitive-linguistic theories, such as conceptual metaphor and metonymy or prototype theory (see, for example, Kruger 2000; van Wolde 2008; Schlimm 2008 on anger; Kotzé 2004 and Jindo 2011 on fear; King 2010 on distress), or other theories of (cognitive) science (see, for example, Kazen 2017a on disgust). Many of the studies, in fact, involved cultural and cognitive aspects to some extent, for these are generally not necessarily contrasting with a theological approach, but rather are important components thereof. In some cases, the approach to emotions was thematic rather than emotive, that is, such studies examine emotions within a specific theme; for example, Kazen (2017b), who investigated the involve-ment of emotions in ethics and morality. The general approach in research on emotions in BH also reflects the multiple occurrences of emotions in relationships between God and the people of Israel as a group, as well as signif-icant individuals such as kings and other leaders. In his paper on the association between joy and volition, Muffs (1979: 91) asserted that “The religious life of the ancients—Mesopotamian and Hebrew alike—was less a quest for salvation or union with a metapersonal godhead than an ongoing personal relationship, of different degrees of stability and intimacy, between man and his god(s).” Emotions are, in this light, natural elements of such relationships, as, for ex-ample, the influential work of Moran (1963) on ’hb ‘love’ in the context of divinity showed (Moran’s study is elaborated in 3.3.1); see also the different studies on fear (for instance, Wil-son 1995; Kroeze 2004; Jindo 2011; Clines 2003), and Schlimm’s publication (2017) on the relation between emotions and biblical theology and ethics. The following subsections provide concise overviews of findings regarding the conceptual-isation of emotions in the Hebrew Bible. The selection represents mostly recent studies and it is restricted to studies with a linguistic perspective, i.e., studies based on the occurrence of explicit emotion words rather than studies in which emotion-events are inferred from the con-text. 3.2.1 Fear

Fear, expressed by the lexeme yr’ is the first emotion mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in the narrative of the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:10). The first man uses wā’îirā’ ‘I was afraid’ when he answers Yhwh’s call to explain his and the woman’s hiding after hearing Yhwh’s voice. This first occurrence signals a recurring theme in the Hebrew Bible, namely the fear of God, which is typically expressed in the following phrase: yir’at ’ĕlōhîm/yāhwəh. The interpretation of this phrase varies among scholars from a purely mental state, such as fear of death (Clines 2003) and fear of the absolute sovereign (Jindo 2011), to a more complex experience that also in-volves reason and behaviour (see, for example, Gruber 1990; Wilson 1995; Clines 2003; Bosman 2012; Viljoen & Venter 2013). Fear of God symbolises a much broader concept in BH, namely the complex relationship between humans and God, which in Deuteronomy is tightly related to the love of God as expressed by ’hb (see Arnold 2011 on the affective and cognitive aspects of fear and love of God). Kroeze (2004) stressed the complexity of fear of God by the transition from a (more obvious) negative to a positive connotation in the use of the phrase, both of which, he argued, are necessary for the relationship between humans and

God. Obviously these findings are based on specific texts, mostly Deuteronomy, and within the context of divinity. Other types of fear in BH, also expressed by other lexemes (e.g., pḥd, ḥrd) indicate a rich semantic field that consists also of metaphors and metonyms. By employing a cognitive lin-guistic approach and examining the figurative language of fear, Kruger (2001) included phys-ical spontaneous expressions that are involved in the emotional experience. Similar to Kövecses (1990), Kruger (2001: 86) also identified the conceptualisation of fear in BH as a “vicious enemy/opponent”. In a comprehensive study of the semantic field of fear, Kroeze (2004) defined three types of the emotion in BH, namely negative, numinous and positive. Arnold (2011) looked at the semantic field of yr’ and regarded the different senses of the root as a spectrum with the feeling of terror (“pathological anxiety”, i.e., the emotional sense) at one end and “a positive course of action”, which in the context of divinity is the obedience of the commandment to fear Yhwh (p. 564) at the other. The latter is a cognitive sense, but, as Arnold (2011: 566) emphasised, yr’ at this end of the spectrum is by no means unemotional. The emotional component of yr’, Arnold argued, is part of the human-divine relationship re-gardless of the commandment (as shown by Gen 3:10), and the obedience to the commandment is a “by-product” of the general reverence which characterises this relationship (this also links fear expressed by yr’ to ’hb in Deuteronomy, as will be discussed in 3.3). While Arnold did not clearly distinguish between the physical and psychological components of the emotional sense, a later study by Mirguet (2016: 451) observed that the physical sensation is often used to describe fear as the emotion, with both physical and psychological components undistin-guished and embedded within this physical sensation. 3.2.2 Anger Anger is another salient emotion in BH and, like fear, it often concerns the relationship between humans and God. Indeed, many of the earlier studies on anger concentrated on this theme, where anger was mainly expressed by God as a reaction to humans’ sins (see, for instance, Kotzé 2004 and Schlimm 2008 for critical overviews). From a theological point of view, anger is conceptually related to fear and love, with all three playing an important role in the relation-ship between humans and God. Moreover, Schlimm (2017: 49) noted that anger in the Hebrew Bible is strongly associated with God; much more than with humans. Later studies expanded the scope of anger also to other contexts and other theoretical frameworks. Kruger (2000) focused on the figurative language of anger. He applied the conceptual met-aphor theory, in particular Lakoff & Kövecses’s (1987) cultural model of anger in American English. The figurative language of anger, he argued, is based on the general conceptual met-aphor ANGER IS HEAT (IN A CONTAINER), which originates in the physical sensations that are part of the experience of anger. This metaphor may alternate with another conceptual met-aphor, ANGER IS FIRE, and both generate different metonyms, such as ‘my wrath shall come up in my nose’ (Ezek 38:18), which expresses the body heat felt in the face. Other principle conceptions of anger in Kruger’s study are ANGER IS OPPONENT and ANGER IS ANIMAL. In the same vein, Kotzé (2004a) conducted a cognitive linguistic study of the figurative language of anger. He too placed the ANGER IS HEAT metaphor at the centre and summarised his


Chapter 3 ׀ 40

findings in a prototypical folk model (i.e., the underlying conceptions regardless of the exeget-ical purposes of the texts) in the form of scenario, and thus with the temporal aspects of the experience of anger. Kotzé’s scenario was based on Kövecses’s (1990) scenario of anger in English, and consisted of the following five stages: i. Offending event, ii. Anger (physical sen-sations), iii. Attempt to control anger (mostly in wisdom texts), iv. Loss of control (involuntary bodily expression of anger such as movement of the limbs), and v. Retribution (violent, uncon-trolled behaviour. A similar approach was taken by van Wolde (2008: 9–14), who elaborated on Kruger’s (2000) metaphorical model and concluded with a four-stage scenario, based on that of Kövecses; in van Wolde’s scenario, the third stage (i.e., the attempt to control anger) is not included. Schlimm’s (2008: 98–99) prototypical model of anger in BH consisted of the following five elements: i. Cause (prototypically interpersonal wrongdoing), ii. Object (proto-typically male), iii. Subject (prototypically one who possesses a degree of power), iv. Result (prototypically violence and then separation), and v. Evaluation (prototypically negative). There are thus similarities and differences between the three models of Kruger (2000), van Wolde (2008), and Schlimm (2008). Both van Wolde and Schlimm pointed to the general so-cial hierarchy in the distribution of anger in BH and the atypical occurrence of anger with a female in the role of the subject. Schlimm’s (2008) study further concentrated on the ethics of anger in the book of Genesis and applied several different theoretical frameworks, including philosophy, anthropology, cog-nitive linguistics, and translation studies. His general conclusion was that anger in Genesis is a “common feature of the fractured world and imperfect humanity… It must be engaged lest it ruin morality, community, and even life itself. Anger is thus not ‘merely a feeling.’ It is an ethical matter of the first degree” (Schlimm 2008: 284). Finally, Grant (2010, 2011, 2014) dealt with commonalities and contrasts between human and divine anger as expressed by anger terms, and the anthropomorphic elements in divine anger. When expressed by ḥmh ( המח ), Grant (2010) found that the syntactic constructions of human and divine anger differed from each other. A human experiencer of anger is the subject of transitive verbs or the object of passive verbs that denote God’s reprisal. In a non-exhaustive investigation, Grant (2011) argued that human anger is a response to disregarded authorities with the aim of reconfirming them. The social identity of the individual(s) who threatens the authority plays a role in the severity of the expression of anger. Accordingly, anger is lethal when an outsider, dependent on the group, threatens the stability of this group; anger is not lethal when a kin threatens authorities. Human anger, according to Grant, is possibly the model of divine anger in BH (see also Grant 2014). 3.2.3 Joy Joy is expressed by different lexemes and metonymies denoting ways of expression of joy such as singing or crying aloud. The expression of joy is often attributed to (young) women and generally more often to groups than individuals. Muffs (1979: 103) examined the use of śmḥ ‘rejoice’ in the context of donors/gifts given to God as a metaphor of willingness. The act of giving, Muffs asserted, should be accompanied by a facial expression of generosity. This aspect of the human-divine relationship is thus an analogue of the social relations of ancient Israel,

where the exchange of gifts and favours continuously took place. Mirguet (2016: 452) ad-dressed the prescription of joy in legal texts, i.e., God’s commandment to the people of Israel to be joyous. Echoing Anderson (1991), she advanced the idea that joy in BH involves a be-havioural aspect that is often expressed in rituals and other activities, for example, sexual in-tercourse. Activities of joy may also involve different celebrating elements such as eating and drinking or singing and dancing. This accords well with Muffs’s (1979) observation regarding donation and gift-giving, and will be discussed in 3.2.4 with the expression of grief in BH. Within the same context of divinity, Abart (2015) based her examination on a number of psalms, where she distinguished between joy as a brief experience, a reaction to a stimulus, and joy as a permanent happiness, a sign of a fundamentally right way of life. The first type is the joy caused by specific salvation deeds of God. A permanent happiness is ensured by per-manent worship. The locus of joy, according to Abart, is often in the heart and the liver, but the kidneys and eyes may also be associated with joy. Based on a non-exhaustive list of terms that denote expressions of joy, Gubler (2005) dis-tinguished between the different types of joy in different contexts, for example, a mother’s joy, the joy of prosperity in peace (Esther), a passing joy (the significance of life in Ecclesiastes), and the happiness of the righteous. Although not exhaustive, Gluber’s typology showed that terms of joy in BH do not occur exclusively in contexts of divinity, and can concern different aspects of life. 3.2.4 Grief/Distress Like joy, grief and its (near) synonyms are often expressed in BH by manners of expression such as weeping, facial expression, and conduct. In addition, the Hebrew Bible often expresses grief by figurative language, which provides a glimpse into the conceptions underlying the expressions. Mumford (1992) paid attention to the bodily loci of distress that occur in Psalms and poetic texts, of which heart, bowels, belly, bones, and eyes are the most frequent. He argued that it is difficult to strictly distinguish between the physical sensation and the psychological state of grief, as clearly indicated in the ‘parallelism’ of verses in these sort of texts. Mumford (1992: 96) further stressed the difference between bodily metaphors of distress and descriptive expressions of bodily sensation, arguing for the existence of three general categories of the expression of distress, namely bodily sensations, bodily metaphors, and abstract language. Like Mumford, Mirguet (2016: 452–55) emphasised the non-dichotomic physical-mental experi-ence of grief expressed in BH, maintaining that the expression of this emotion very often does not include emotional terms at all, but rather descriptions of conduct and activities. King (2010) studied the figurative language of distress in Psalms, Job, Lamentations, Jere-miah, and certain other narrative texts, applying the cognitive linguistic approach. He estab-lished three common image schemas in the language of distress, namely Verticality (i.e., up is good; down is bad), indicated, for example, by the bent body or lying down as a contrast to upright posture; Constraint, i.e., limitation of movement and action, as in the distress expressed by Jonah after he was thrown to the water (Jonah 2:6); and, the most common of the three, Force, i.e., a destructive force that may impair, destroy, or have a grasp on someone. In addi-tion, King (2010) found Darkness and Bad Taste to be common source domains of the



findings in a prototypical folk model (i.e., the underlying conceptions regardless of the exeget-ical purposes of the texts) in the form of scenario, and thus with the temporal aspects of the experience of anger. Kotzé’s scenario was based on Kövecses’s (1990) scenario of anger in English, and consisted of the following five stages: i. Offending event, ii. Anger (physical sen-sations), iii. Attempt to control anger (mostly in wisdom texts), iv. Loss of control (involuntary bodily expression of anger such as movement of the limbs), and v. Retribution (violent, uncon-trolled behaviour. A similar approach was taken by van Wolde (2008: 9–14), who elaborated on Kruger’s (2000) metaphorical model and concluded with a four-stage scenario, based on that of Kövecses; in van Wolde’s scenario, the third stage (i.e., the attempt to control anger) is not included. Schlimm’s (2008: 98–99) prototypical model of anger in BH consisted of the following five elements: i. Cause (prototypically interpersonal wrongdoing), ii. Object (proto-typically male), iii. Subject (prototypically one who possesses a degree of power), iv. Result (prototypically violence and then separation), and v. Evaluation (prototypically negative). There are thus similarities and differences between the three models of Kruger (2000), van Wolde (2008), and Schlimm (2008). Both van Wolde and Schlimm pointed to the general so-cial hierarchy in the distribution of anger in BH and the atypical occurrence of anger with a female in the role of the subject. Schlimm’s (2008) study further concentrated on the ethics of anger in the book of Genesis and applied several different theoretical frameworks, including philosophy, anthropology, cog-nitive linguistics, and translation studies. His general conclusion was that anger in Genesis is a “common feature of the fractured world and imperfect humanity… It must be engaged lest it ruin morality, community, and even life itself. Anger is thus not ‘merely a feeling.’ It is an ethical matter of the first degree” (Schlimm 2008: 284). Finally, Grant (2010, 2011, 2014) dealt with commonalities and contrasts between human and divine anger as expressed by anger terms, and the anthropomorphic elements in divine anger. When expressed by ḥmh ( המח ), Grant (2010) found that the syntactic constructions of human and divine anger differed from each other. A human experiencer of anger is the subject of transitive verbs or the object of passive verbs that denote God’s reprisal. In a non-exhaustive investigation, Grant (2011) argued that human anger is a response to disregarded authorities with the aim of reconfirming them. The social identity of the individual(s) who threatens the authority plays a role in the severity of the expression of anger. Accordingly, anger is lethal when an outsider, dependent on the group, threatens the stability of this group; anger is not lethal when a kin threatens authorities. Human anger, according to Grant, is possibly the model of divine anger in BH (see also Grant 2014). 3.2.3 Joy Joy is expressed by different lexemes and metonymies denoting ways of expression of joy such as singing or crying aloud. The expression of joy is often attributed to (young) women and generally more often to groups than individuals. Muffs (1979: 103) examined the use of śmḥ ‘rejoice’ in the context of donors/gifts given to God as a metaphor of willingness. The act of giving, Muffs asserted, should be accompanied by a facial expression of generosity. This aspect of the human-divine relationship is thus an analogue of the social relations of ancient Israel,

where the exchange of gifts and favours continuously took place. Mirguet (2016: 452) ad-dressed the prescription of joy in legal texts, i.e., God’s commandment to the people of Israel to be joyous. Echoing Anderson (1991), she advanced the idea that joy in BH involves a be-havioural aspect that is often expressed in rituals and other activities, for example, sexual in-tercourse. Activities of joy may also involve different celebrating elements such as eating and drinking or singing and dancing. This accords well with Muffs’s (1979) observation regarding donation and gift-giving, and will be discussed in 3.2.4 with the expression of grief in BH. Within the same context of divinity, Abart (2015) based her examination on a number of psalms, where she distinguished between joy as a brief experience, a reaction to a stimulus, and joy as a permanent happiness, a sign of a fundamentally right way of life. The first type is the joy caused by specific salvation deeds of God. A permanent happiness is ensured by per-manent worship. The locus of joy, according to Abart, is often in the heart and the liver, but the kidneys and eyes may also be associated with joy. Based on a non-exhaustive list of terms that denote expressions of joy, Gubler (2005) dis-tinguished between the different types of joy in different contexts, for example, a mother’s joy, the joy of prosperity in peace (Esther), a passing joy (the significance of life in Ecclesiastes), and the happiness of the righteous. Although not exhaustive, Gluber’s typology showed that terms of joy in BH do not occur exclusively in contexts of divinity, and can concern different aspects of life. 3.2.4 Grief/Distress Like joy, grief and its (near) synonyms are often expressed in BH by manners of expression such as weeping, facial expression, and conduct. In addition, the Hebrew Bible often expresses grief by figurative language, which provides a glimpse into the conceptions underlying the expressions. Mumford (1992) paid attention to the bodily loci of distress that occur in Psalms and poetic texts, of which heart, bowels, belly, bones, and eyes are the most frequent. He argued that it is difficult to strictly distinguish between the physical sensation and the psychological state of grief, as clearly indicated in the ‘parallelism’ of verses in these sort of texts. Mumford (1992: 96) further stressed the difference between bodily metaphors of distress and descriptive expressions of bodily sensation, arguing for the existence of three general categories of the expression of distress, namely bodily sensations, bodily metaphors, and abstract language. Like Mumford, Mirguet (2016: 452–55) emphasised the non-dichotomic physical-mental experi-ence of grief expressed in BH, maintaining that the expression of this emotion very often does not include emotional terms at all, but rather descriptions of conduct and activities. King (2010) studied the figurative language of distress in Psalms, Job, Lamentations, Jere-miah, and certain other narrative texts, applying the cognitive linguistic approach. He estab-lished three common image schemas in the language of distress, namely Verticality (i.e., up is good; down is bad), indicated, for example, by the bent body or lying down as a contrast to upright posture; Constraint, i.e., limitation of movement and action, as in the distress expressed by Jonah after he was thrown to the water (Jonah 2:6); and, the most common of the three, Force, i.e., a destructive force that may impair, destroy, or have a grasp on someone. In addi-tion, King (2010) found Darkness and Bad Taste to be common source domains of the


Chapter 3 ׀ 42

metaphorical mapping of distress. The metaphors of distress together constitute the basis of a prototypical scenario of four stages, with an innocent human subject and an unsuspected hu-man/God agent as a deliberate cause. The stages are: 1. Distress approaches (the subjects be-comes aware of the causer), 2. Distress (experienced as a forceful impact with physiological symptoms), 3. Distress continues (constraining the subject, causing dysfunction), and 4. Relief (an external agent causes relief) (King 2010: 342–43). The concept, and the semantic field of grief and its (near) synonyms, illustrates well the claims discussed in the opening of this chapter regarding the validity of the notion of emotion in BH. While grief is easily interpreted as such, the language that expresses what we interpret as grief is not purely emotive and it does not strictly distinguish between emotional pain and physical pain or other sorts of discomfort. Grief in BH is thus a complex category that involves both physical and mental states, distinct conduct and rituals, in addition to individual inner feelings and social interaction. 3.2.5 Shame

Shame in BH is commonly discussed in a binary relation with honour—i.e., violation of honour is shame—within a pan-Mediterranean socio-cultural framework (see Stiebert 2002 for a sur-vey and criticism; Avrahami 2010). Avrahami (2010) approached shame through its semantic field, focusing on the occurrences of shame terminology expressed by verbs of the root bwš along with its synonyms and antonyms in laments in Psalms, where more than one third of all the occurrences of the root are found. According to Avrahami, bwš denotes a negative experi-ence, often one of disappointment and failure: “It is worthwhile to define שוב (bwš, RV) as an experience that emerges from a break between expectations and reality” (Avrahami 2010: 310). She identified the possible causes of shame and stressed a complexity in this relationship: “Failure, disappointment, frustration, humiliation, and the suffering of harm, can all cause shame within a specific cultural context, yet they are not identical. Furthermore, this sense of shame can be integrated into the semantic load of the words that describe those experiences and even replace it in certain contexts” (Avrahami 2010: 302). The causal relationship between the different negative experiences and the experience of shame are thus transformed into a polysemy, which blurs the boundaries between cause and effect. Avrahami (2010: 310) further showed that also in contexts other than the Psalms, i.e., not in human-divine relationships, bwš denotes disappointment. Also concentrating on Psalms and to a certain extent similar to Avrahami, Stiegenthaler (2014) regarded shame as a complex negative experience of a believer, involving both human-divine relation and social interaction. Disappointment, he argued, marks the first phase of this experience and is caused by some kind of “severe setback” and indicates the believer’s unful-filled expectations from God. Disappointment is transformed into shame when the believer is the target of harmful or insulting behaviour by his/her enemies, as in the form of (non)verbal mockery, derision, etc. This behaviour of the enemies is, according to Siegenthaler (2004: 19), what defines shame in Psalms. Thus, shame in Psalms, although it emerges in a negative social interaction, originated from disappointment in God.

Levinson Kasle’s (2019) point of departure was the assumed existence of the concept of shaming/shame in the Hebrew Bible, and that it plays a role in it. Her conclusion was that the different manifestations of shaming/shame in the Hebrew Bible all share one motif, namely a divine response to human arrogance. 3.2.6 Jealousy

Jealousy is another emotion that may (intuitively) be interpreted as such in various contexts where no explicit jealousy terminology occurs in the text. The first occurrence of what is un-derstood as jealousy is in Genesis 4, where Cain killed his brother Abel after God highly re-garded the latter’s offering yet ignored the offering of Cain. The text clearly conveys Cain’s anger and bad feelings, also in the description of his facial expression ‘his face fell’ (Gen 4:5). In spite of God’s attempt to change Cain’s mood with words, Cain called Abel to meet him in the field and killed him. Various interpersonal occurrences of jealousy include the root qn’ (for example, Gen 30:1, where childless Rachel was jealous of her sister Leah who birthed a child to their husband Jacob, and Gen 37:11 with Joseph’s brothers’ jealousy over his being the beloved son of their father). In contrast to this, the adjective form of the root, qannā’ ‘zealous/jealous’ (masculine single form), occurs with God as the subject. Differing from previous studies on jealousy, Am-zallag (2015) distinguished between the human and divine uses of qn’, based on both gram-matical and contextual aspects. He argued that the main difference between the two lies in the most fundamental characteristics of each of them; whereas the human qn’ denotes a negative, even destructive, feeling mainly related to jealousy/envy, the divine type is a “fiery mode of action conceived as a process of destruction immediately followed by rejuvenation/redemp-tion” (Amzallag 2015: 247). Amzallag explained his view on the nature of the divine qn’ by drawing a conceptual link between its manifestations, i.e., fiery action followed by rejuvena-tion, and the process of remelting copper in a furnace in ancient Near Eastern metallurgy. As he (2015: 238) argued, the parallelism between God and remelting copper is not metaphorical, rather the fiery element that is expressed by the divine qanna’ is “a genuine mode of divine action”. As in the case of anger, Amzallag’s analysis showed how the same root conveys different meanings based on the identity of the experiencer, i.e., human or divine. Furthermore, his anal-ysis implied a conceptual association between the terminology of anger and qn’, either when denoting jealousy or the divine fiery mode of action. On the one hand, the human negative feeling mostly related to jealousy that the root denotes also involves different other experi-ences, such as frustration and disappointment, that may cause anger. On the other hand, the fiery component of the divine qanna’ involves fire and heat, which are parts of the terminology of divine anger. Grant (2015: 159), in contrast, understood the possible association between divine fire in the context of jealousy in Deut 4:24 to be “reminiscent of Yhwh’s anger” and not as a divine embodiment of fire. She argued that the consequences of his jealousy (Deut 4:26–27) are not related to lethal fire.



metaphorical mapping of distress. The metaphors of distress together constitute the basis of a prototypical scenario of four stages, with an innocent human subject and an unsuspected hu-man/God agent as a deliberate cause. The stages are: 1. Distress approaches (the subjects be-comes aware of the causer), 2. Distress (experienced as a forceful impact with physiological symptoms), 3. Distress continues (constraining the subject, causing dysfunction), and 4. Relief (an external agent causes relief) (King 2010: 342–43). The concept, and the semantic field of grief and its (near) synonyms, illustrates well the claims discussed in the opening of this chapter regarding the validity of the notion of emotion in BH. While grief is easily interpreted as such, the language that expresses what we interpret as grief is not purely emotive and it does not strictly distinguish between emotional pain and physical pain or other sorts of discomfort. Grief in BH is thus a complex category that involves both physical and mental states, distinct conduct and rituals, in addition to individual inner feelings and social interaction. 3.2.5 Shame

Shame in BH is commonly discussed in a binary relation with honour—i.e., violation of honour is shame—within a pan-Mediterranean socio-cultural framework (see Stiebert 2002 for a sur-vey and criticism; Avrahami 2010). Avrahami (2010) approached shame through its semantic field, focusing on the occurrences of shame terminology expressed by verbs of the root bwš along with its synonyms and antonyms in laments in Psalms, where more than one third of all the occurrences of the root are found. According to Avrahami, bwš denotes a negative experi-ence, often one of disappointment and failure: “It is worthwhile to define שוב (bwš, RV) as an experience that emerges from a break between expectations and reality” (Avrahami 2010: 310). She identified the possible causes of shame and stressed a complexity in this relationship: “Failure, disappointment, frustration, humiliation, and the suffering of harm, can all cause shame within a specific cultural context, yet they are not identical. Furthermore, this sense of shame can be integrated into the semantic load of the words that describe those experiences and even replace it in certain contexts” (Avrahami 2010: 302). The causal relationship between the different negative experiences and the experience of shame are thus transformed into a polysemy, which blurs the boundaries between cause and effect. Avrahami (2010: 310) further showed that also in contexts other than the Psalms, i.e., not in human-divine relationships, bwš denotes disappointment. Also concentrating on Psalms and to a certain extent similar to Avrahami, Stiegenthaler (2014) regarded shame as a complex negative experience of a believer, involving both human-divine relation and social interaction. Disappointment, he argued, marks the first phase of this experience and is caused by some kind of “severe setback” and indicates the believer’s unful-filled expectations from God. Disappointment is transformed into shame when the believer is the target of harmful or insulting behaviour by his/her enemies, as in the form of (non)verbal mockery, derision, etc. This behaviour of the enemies is, according to Siegenthaler (2004: 19), what defines shame in Psalms. Thus, shame in Psalms, although it emerges in a negative social interaction, originated from disappointment in God.

Levinson Kasle’s (2019) point of departure was the assumed existence of the concept of shaming/shame in the Hebrew Bible, and that it plays a role in it. Her conclusion was that the different manifestations of shaming/shame in the Hebrew Bible all share one motif, namely a divine response to human arrogance. 3.2.6 Jealousy

Jealousy is another emotion that may (intuitively) be interpreted as such in various contexts where no explicit jealousy terminology occurs in the text. The first occurrence of what is un-derstood as jealousy is in Genesis 4, where Cain killed his brother Abel after God highly re-garded the latter’s offering yet ignored the offering of Cain. The text clearly conveys Cain’s anger and bad feelings, also in the description of his facial expression ‘his face fell’ (Gen 4:5). In spite of God’s attempt to change Cain’s mood with words, Cain called Abel to meet him in the field and killed him. Various interpersonal occurrences of jealousy include the root qn’ (for example, Gen 30:1, where childless Rachel was jealous of her sister Leah who birthed a child to their husband Jacob, and Gen 37:11 with Joseph’s brothers’ jealousy over his being the beloved son of their father). In contrast to this, the adjective form of the root, qannā’ ‘zealous/jealous’ (masculine single form), occurs with God as the subject. Differing from previous studies on jealousy, Am-zallag (2015) distinguished between the human and divine uses of qn’, based on both gram-matical and contextual aspects. He argued that the main difference between the two lies in the most fundamental characteristics of each of them; whereas the human qn’ denotes a negative, even destructive, feeling mainly related to jealousy/envy, the divine type is a “fiery mode of action conceived as a process of destruction immediately followed by rejuvenation/redemp-tion” (Amzallag 2015: 247). Amzallag explained his view on the nature of the divine qn’ by drawing a conceptual link between its manifestations, i.e., fiery action followed by rejuvena-tion, and the process of remelting copper in a furnace in ancient Near Eastern metallurgy. As he (2015: 238) argued, the parallelism between God and remelting copper is not metaphorical, rather the fiery element that is expressed by the divine qanna’ is “a genuine mode of divine action”. As in the case of anger, Amzallag’s analysis showed how the same root conveys different meanings based on the identity of the experiencer, i.e., human or divine. Furthermore, his anal-ysis implied a conceptual association between the terminology of anger and qn’, either when denoting jealousy or the divine fiery mode of action. On the one hand, the human negative feeling mostly related to jealousy that the root denotes also involves different other experi-ences, such as frustration and disappointment, that may cause anger. On the other hand, the fiery component of the divine qanna’ involves fire and heat, which are parts of the terminology of divine anger. Grant (2015: 159), in contrast, understood the possible association between divine fire in the context of jealousy in Deut 4:24 to be “reminiscent of Yhwh’s anger” and not as a divine embodiment of fire. She argued that the consequences of his jealousy (Deut 4:26–27) are not related to lethal fire.


Chapter 3 ׀ 44

3.2.7 Hate

The lexical expression of hate in BH is mainly associated with the root śn’, which occurs in different types of texts, such as narratives, legislation, and wisdom. The meaning of śn’ is the subject of much debate, with some scholars favouring (inner) emotion (see Nutkowicz 2007), while others consider śn’ as a legal term in the context of divorce (see Mirguet 2016: 449 for an overview). Representing the latter view, Botta (2013: 116–17) argued that, although in the Hebrew Bible this root may also denote an internal feeling, this is not its primary meaning. According to him, in most of its occurrences the meaning is active and dynamic, concerning enmity, divine disapproval, or rejection of cultic conduct similarly to ‘despise’, and it can be seen as a synonym of ‘physical distance’ or ‘separation’. Generally, Botta claimed that sn’ is strongly related to the breaking of covenantal relationships, such as marriage or settlement-related covenants. Based on the various uses of śn’over different contexts, Mirguet (2016: 450) suggested to examine śn’ as having a spectrum of meanings. On this spectrum, the root may denote an in-terpersonal feeling of hate, an opposition of love, and a bodily repulsion or lack of lust. These feelings often occur within the context of marriage, where the experiencer is the husband. Oth-erwise, śn’ may also be associated with an active physical distancing, abandonment, or when used in the participle active form śōnē’ ‘hater’/‘foe’ to denote an enemy. Both Botta and Mirguet attributed to śn’ an additive sense in the context of marriage in legal texts. Botta (2013: 117) considered śn’ as a metaphor of rejection, referring to Judg 15:2 as an example (see also Bosman 2011: 274 on sn’ in the context of marriage), while Mirguet (2016: 450) noted that in in two legal texts (Deut 22:13, 16; 24:3) śn’ may denote a complex meaning that besides physical and emotional rejection also involves legal rejection, i.e., the act of re-leasing or driving the woman away by her husband. Although śn’ indeed seems to play an important role in the process of the dissolution of a marriage, this seems to be more a physi-cal/emotional cause than a metaphor or the action itself. 3.2.8 Conclusions

The above overview unfolds a category of multifaceted experiences with overlaps and concep-tual associations between some of the terms from within that category. Although the study of emotions in BH has mostly been thematic and limited to specific biblical contexts, and some particular studies have tended to approach emotions from the perspective of modern thought (i.e., strictly distinguishing between cognitive [including action and conduct] and affective ex-periences), many of these previous studies have revealed a more complex conception of emo-tions. In general, emotion in BH can be understood as a complex category of diverse experi-ences that involve (physical) feelings and social (hierarchical) relationships, either interper-sonal or between humans and God, with the latter being a recurrent theme in BH. The social relationships involved in emotional experience are versatile. This follows Mirguet (2016: 446), who argues that emotions in the Hebrew Bible are not merely individual inner states, rather they also include other kinds of experiences, such as activities and conduct.

In regard to (methodological) approaches to emotions, many of the studies clearly show that a thorough investigation of texts can provide the necessary instruments for understanding emo-tions with all their components. Linguistic forms and constructions, as well as the immediate and broader context, with attention to the types and identities of participants, i.e., human, di-vine, (in)animate, are all important elements that contribute to the understanding of emotions, regardless of common, or presumed, biblical themes (see Avrahami’s 2010 study on shame, for example). Moreover, in terms of analytical concepts, the character of the biblical texts and the abundance of the use of figurative language indicate the usefulness of concepts such as image schema, scenario, spectrum, or other imagery-based cognitive models for the under-standing of emotions in BH. Arnold (2011: 564 for yr’ ‘fear’) and Mirguet (2016: 450 for śn’ ‘hate’) use ‘spectrum’ to describe the diverse types of experience represented by these emotion words. This indeed may be an adequate term for at least some of the emotions with a rich semantic field, next to ‘prototypicality’, which in some cases would perhaps be more relevant. Both convey the idea that differences or nuances coexist with shared features. As Mirguet (2016: 456) formulated this, emotions in the Hebrew Bible are often expressed by “clusters of responses” on the basis of which scenarios or scripts can be inferred. These clusters, she em-phasised, “encompass social experiences…, as indignation, protection of vulnerable others, and mourning, all crucial in organizing social relationships and shaping power dynamics”. An-alytical concepts highlight the underlying conceptions and perceptions specific to the ancient Israelite culture, as well as other dimensions like temporality, action, and spatial relations (as in the studies of Kruger 2000, 2001 and King 2010). Finally, it seems that the ‘social turn’ of emotion studies in (linguistic) anthropology that was discussed in the previous chapter (2.3.2) was perhaps less relevant to the study of emotions in BH. This is not because socialness is not relevant to emotions in BH, rather, in this language, socialness as a general characteristic of emotions was often present in the investigation. The text and the dominant exegetical approach are social in nature, as divinity and society are not strictly distinguished in BH. The social order is based on a hierarchical system of which God is the superior sovereign, and kings (anointed by him), priests, officers, and chiefs are all sub-ordinate. Although the biblical contexts are limited in scope, they often lead to the inclusion of sociocultural aspects that can serve as the key for understanding emotions, whether deliberately or not. A sociocultural approach combined with the cognitive models thus seems to be a suita-ble one for studying emotion in BH. The critical overview of the studies of ’hb ‘love’ in the following section refers also to this aspect. 3.3 ’hb ‘love’ in BH The lexeme ’hb occurs in many contexts in each of the different text-types (i.e., narrative, wis-dom, legislation, poetry, and prophacy) of the Hebrew Bible. The majority of previous studies on ’hb concentrated on only one context, most often divinity, or only one (or a few) specific text. From an exegetical perspective, ’hb demonstrates two highly important themes in the He-brew Bible, namely God’s love of Israel (e.g. Det. 4:37) and the commandment to love God in Deut. 6:5. This lexeme also appears in a number of other contexts, for example, where it refers



3.2.7 Hate

The lexical expression of hate in BH is mainly associated with the root śn’, which occurs in different types of texts, such as narratives, legislation, and wisdom. The meaning of śn’ is the subject of much debate, with some scholars favouring (inner) emotion (see Nutkowicz 2007), while others consider śn’ as a legal term in the context of divorce (see Mirguet 2016: 449 for an overview). Representing the latter view, Botta (2013: 116–17) argued that, although in the Hebrew Bible this root may also denote an internal feeling, this is not its primary meaning. According to him, in most of its occurrences the meaning is active and dynamic, concerning enmity, divine disapproval, or rejection of cultic conduct similarly to ‘despise’, and it can be seen as a synonym of ‘physical distance’ or ‘separation’. Generally, Botta claimed that sn’ is strongly related to the breaking of covenantal relationships, such as marriage or settlement-related covenants. Based on the various uses of śn’over different contexts, Mirguet (2016: 450) suggested to examine śn’ as having a spectrum of meanings. On this spectrum, the root may denote an in-terpersonal feeling of hate, an opposition of love, and a bodily repulsion or lack of lust. These feelings often occur within the context of marriage, where the experiencer is the husband. Oth-erwise, śn’ may also be associated with an active physical distancing, abandonment, or when used in the participle active form śōnē’ ‘hater’/‘foe’ to denote an enemy. Both Botta and Mirguet attributed to śn’ an additive sense in the context of marriage in legal texts. Botta (2013: 117) considered śn’ as a metaphor of rejection, referring to Judg 15:2 as an example (see also Bosman 2011: 274 on sn’ in the context of marriage), while Mirguet (2016: 450) noted that in in two legal texts (Deut 22:13, 16; 24:3) śn’ may denote a complex meaning that besides physical and emotional rejection also involves legal rejection, i.e., the act of re-leasing or driving the woman away by her husband. Although śn’ indeed seems to play an important role in the process of the dissolution of a marriage, this seems to be more a physi-cal/emotional cause than a metaphor or the action itself. 3.2.8 Conclusions

The above overview unfolds a category of multifaceted experiences with overlaps and concep-tual associations between some of the terms from within that category. Although the study of emotions in BH has mostly been thematic and limited to specific biblical contexts, and some particular studies have tended to approach emotions from the perspective of modern thought (i.e., strictly distinguishing between cognitive [including action and conduct] and affective ex-periences), many of these previous studies have revealed a more complex conception of emo-tions. In general, emotion in BH can be understood as a complex category of diverse experi-ences that involve (physical) feelings and social (hierarchical) relationships, either interper-sonal or between humans and God, with the latter being a recurrent theme in BH. The social relationships involved in emotional experience are versatile. This follows Mirguet (2016: 446), who argues that emotions in the Hebrew Bible are not merely individual inner states, rather they also include other kinds of experiences, such as activities and conduct.

In regard to (methodological) approaches to emotions, many of the studies clearly show that a thorough investigation of texts can provide the necessary instruments for understanding emo-tions with all their components. Linguistic forms and constructions, as well as the immediate and broader context, with attention to the types and identities of participants, i.e., human, di-vine, (in)animate, are all important elements that contribute to the understanding of emotions, regardless of common, or presumed, biblical themes (see Avrahami’s 2010 study on shame, for example). Moreover, in terms of analytical concepts, the character of the biblical texts and the abundance of the use of figurative language indicate the usefulness of concepts such as image schema, scenario, spectrum, or other imagery-based cognitive models for the under-standing of emotions in BH. Arnold (2011: 564 for yr’ ‘fear’) and Mirguet (2016: 450 for śn’ ‘hate’) use ‘spectrum’ to describe the diverse types of experience represented by these emotion words. This indeed may be an adequate term for at least some of the emotions with a rich semantic field, next to ‘prototypicality’, which in some cases would perhaps be more relevant. Both convey the idea that differences or nuances coexist with shared features. As Mirguet (2016: 456) formulated this, emotions in the Hebrew Bible are often expressed by “clusters of responses” on the basis of which scenarios or scripts can be inferred. These clusters, she em-phasised, “encompass social experiences…, as indignation, protection of vulnerable others, and mourning, all crucial in organizing social relationships and shaping power dynamics”. An-alytical concepts highlight the underlying conceptions and perceptions specific to the ancient Israelite culture, as well as other dimensions like temporality, action, and spatial relations (as in the studies of Kruger 2000, 2001 and King 2010). Finally, it seems that the ‘social turn’ of emotion studies in (linguistic) anthropology that was discussed in the previous chapter (2.3.2) was perhaps less relevant to the study of emotions in BH. This is not because socialness is not relevant to emotions in BH, rather, in this language, socialness as a general characteristic of emotions was often present in the investigation. The text and the dominant exegetical approach are social in nature, as divinity and society are not strictly distinguished in BH. The social order is based on a hierarchical system of which God is the superior sovereign, and kings (anointed by him), priests, officers, and chiefs are all sub-ordinate. Although the biblical contexts are limited in scope, they often lead to the inclusion of sociocultural aspects that can serve as the key for understanding emotions, whether deliberately or not. A sociocultural approach combined with the cognitive models thus seems to be a suita-ble one for studying emotion in BH. The critical overview of the studies of ’hb ‘love’ in the following section refers also to this aspect. 3.3 ’hb ‘love’ in BH The lexeme ’hb occurs in many contexts in each of the different text-types (i.e., narrative, wis-dom, legislation, poetry, and prophacy) of the Hebrew Bible. The majority of previous studies on ’hb concentrated on only one context, most often divinity, or only one (or a few) specific text. From an exegetical perspective, ’hb demonstrates two highly important themes in the He-brew Bible, namely God’s love of Israel (e.g. Det. 4:37) and the commandment to love God in Deut. 6:5. This lexeme also appears in a number of other contexts, for example, where it refers


Chapter 3 ׀ 46

to interpersonal intimate relationships, such as fatherly affection (Gen 22:2) and a husband’s affection toward his wife (Gen. 24:67). 3.3.1 Earlier work A well-known and influential work, at least prior to the beginning of the 21st century, is Mo-ran’s (1963) study of love as expressed by ’hb in Deuteronomy, where this lexeme occurs in the context of divinity and is related to the human-divine relationship. Moran’s particular in-terest was in the commandment that Israel love God and their obedience (or not) of this com-mandment, which entails the idea that love can be commanded and that it is possible to obey such a commandment. He addressed this problem from the perspective of the ancient Near Eastern political domain, in particular political treaties. The loyalty necessary for alliances and relationships, he noted, was expressed in written communication between the two parties in terms of love. Love in such political contexts, Moran argued, lacks an emotional component, and accordingly the commanded love in Deuteronomy also lacks this emotional content. Thus, for Moran, the type of love in Deuteronomy should be sharply distinguished from the idea of affectionate love that is prevalent in modern languages and cultures. Above all else, he (1963: 78) asserted, “it is a love which must be expressed in loyalty, in service, and in unqualified obedience to the demands of the Law. …It is, in brief, a love defined by and pledged in the covenant—a covenantal love”. Loyalty is the key notion in this relationship, just as it is in political treaties. Moran built his claim on the basis of ancient Near Eastern documents from different areas such as Mari, Assyria, and Egypt, from the second and first millennia BCE, and presented various examples of the use of love terminology to express political loyalty in letters between kings and between sovereigns and their vassals. Moran further referred to several other occurrences of ’hb in the domain of politics to support his claim, e.g., 1 Kgs 5:15 which refers to the alliance between King Hiram and King David, and 1 Sam 18:16 where ’hb expresses Israel and Judah’s support of David. In all these occurrences, Moran claimed that ’hb lacks an emotional component as it is part of the political context. Moran’s analysis was mainly thematic (i.e., based on the theme of covenant) and primarily concerned with the relationship between humans and God. It did raise the important issue of the association between love expressed by ’hb and commandment/obedience, and, furthermore, it suggested a conceptual association between the human-divine relationship and the different human social relationships and social order. His analysis offered the possibility to assume the existence of an ancient cultural model, according to which God is part of the social order, i.e., the supreme sovereign, with the human-divine relationship being similar to relationships be-tween people and their leaders. With this approach, Moran first defined ’hb (and equivalent terms in other languages) as ‘love’ and then concluded that it is “covenantal love” rather than affective love. His analysis did not consider, however, the entire semantic field of ’hb in BH, though he did distinguish between its meaning in Deuteronomy and in other texts outside the political domain. Thus, Moran did not allow for a possible relation between ’hb in Deuteron-omy (and politics) and in other, human contexts. The first step in this direction was made by Ackerman (2002), who added insights from the use of ’hb in interpersonal relationships to the discussion. Ackerman (2002: 447) noted that the

use of ’hb in such relationships, particularly in the domains of romance/marriage and parenthood, is based on social hierarchy. Hence, in romantic or marital relationships, men are usually the subject of ’hb and women the object. This, according to Ackerman, correlates with the human-divine relationship in Deuteronomy. Although the commandment to love God is clear, Ackerman (2002: 445) argued that obedience to it is never indicated in the texts. This led her to conclude that ’hb in BH denotes one-sided love; it is directed from those who have a higher social status (e.g., God, men) to those with a lower status (e.g., humans, women). This general one-sided love, according to Ackerman, entails both the political and the interpersonal components, which are the points of overlap between the two types of ’hb. In contrast to Moran (1963), Ackerman did identify a conceptual link between ’hb in interpersonal and human-di-vine contexts, and concluded that in both love is “a concept tinged with ambiguity and a certain fluidity of meaning” (Ackerman 2002: 457). One-sided love was also observed by van Wolde (2008) in regard to male-female relationships (see also Brenner 1997 on gender hierarchy in the domains of romance and sexuality). It is clear that Ackerman’s study attributed more complexity to ’hb, and stressed the concep-tual imagery-based association between its use in interpersonal and human-divine contexts, and the difficulty to distinguish between the two. What is less clear, however, is her decisive idea about the one-sidedness of love in the context of divinity, for which she claimed there is no indication for a human obedience to love God and, therefore, no such love exists. This point will be critically elaborated in Chapter 4. Lapsley’s (2003) work offers another significant contribution to the understanding of ’hb. Still within the context of Deuteronomy, she addressed some of the more problematic points in Moran’s (1963) analysis, such as the preclusion of other uses of ’hb in BH mentioned above, as well as other non-biblical sociocultural aspects. Lapsley’s (2003: 355) main claim was that the political sense of ’hb originated in the affectionate sense of the word that occurs in familial relationships. She not only recognised similarity and overlap between the different contexts in which ’hb occurs, as Ackerman (2002) did relating to the two types of love, but she pointed to a sensible direction in the process of conceptual transfer, i.e., from the human, intimate affec-tionate domain to the political domain. As a consequence, love in Deuteronomy (i.e., loyalty) is not purely behavioural, but must also contain human affectionate elements. Although Laps-ley criticised Moran’s (and others’) preclusion of other occurrences of ’hb outside the domain of politics, her study also does not examine the entire corpus of ’hb in BH. In a similar vein, Arnold (2011: 560–61) claimed that affective and cognitive aspects of love coexist in Deuteronomy, as two nuances of the same semantic field, which also applies to uses of ’hb outside Deuteronomy. Although the cognitive nuance, resulting in fidelity, may be stronger or more dominant in Deuteronomy, the use of ’hb there should not be reduced to the technical meaning of covenantal love; affection is certainly a component of it as well, Arnold argued. Recently, Grant (2019) took a similar approach, arguing that ’hb in Deuteronomy en-tails both action and affection. This is expressed in God’s love for Israel, as, for example, in Deut 4:37 and 7:8, and in Israel’s love for God, as in Deut 10:12. Grant (2019: 62) linked the



to interpersonal intimate relationships, such as fatherly affection (Gen 22:2) and a husband’s affection toward his wife (Gen. 24:67). 3.3.1 Earlier work A well-known and influential work, at least prior to the beginning of the 21st century, is Mo-ran’s (1963) study of love as expressed by ’hb in Deuteronomy, where this lexeme occurs in the context of divinity and is related to the human-divine relationship. Moran’s particular in-terest was in the commandment that Israel love God and their obedience (or not) of this com-mandment, which entails the idea that love can be commanded and that it is possible to obey such a commandment. He addressed this problem from the perspective of the ancient Near Eastern political domain, in particular political treaties. The loyalty necessary for alliances and relationships, he noted, was expressed in written communication between the two parties in terms of love. Love in such political contexts, Moran argued, lacks an emotional component, and accordingly the commanded love in Deuteronomy also lacks this emotional content. Thus, for Moran, the type of love in Deuteronomy should be sharply distinguished from the idea of affectionate love that is prevalent in modern languages and cultures. Above all else, he (1963: 78) asserted, “it is a love which must be expressed in loyalty, in service, and in unqualified obedience to the demands of the Law. …It is, in brief, a love defined by and pledged in the covenant—a covenantal love”. Loyalty is the key notion in this relationship, just as it is in political treaties. Moran built his claim on the basis of ancient Near Eastern documents from different areas such as Mari, Assyria, and Egypt, from the second and first millennia BCE, and presented various examples of the use of love terminology to express political loyalty in letters between kings and between sovereigns and their vassals. Moran further referred to several other occurrences of ’hb in the domain of politics to support his claim, e.g., 1 Kgs 5:15 which refers to the alliance between King Hiram and King David, and 1 Sam 18:16 where ’hb expresses Israel and Judah’s support of David. In all these occurrences, Moran claimed that ’hb lacks an emotional component as it is part of the political context. Moran’s analysis was mainly thematic (i.e., based on the theme of covenant) and primarily concerned with the relationship between humans and God. It did raise the important issue of the association between love expressed by ’hb and commandment/obedience, and, furthermore, it suggested a conceptual association between the human-divine relationship and the different human social relationships and social order. His analysis offered the possibility to assume the existence of an ancient cultural model, according to which God is part of the social order, i.e., the supreme sovereign, with the human-divine relationship being similar to relationships be-tween people and their leaders. With this approach, Moran first defined ’hb (and equivalent terms in other languages) as ‘love’ and then concluded that it is “covenantal love” rather than affective love. His analysis did not consider, however, the entire semantic field of ’hb in BH, though he did distinguish between its meaning in Deuteronomy and in other texts outside the political domain. Thus, Moran did not allow for a possible relation between ’hb in Deuteron-omy (and politics) and in other, human contexts. The first step in this direction was made by Ackerman (2002), who added insights from the use of ’hb in interpersonal relationships to the discussion. Ackerman (2002: 447) noted that the

use of ’hb in such relationships, particularly in the domains of romance/marriage and parenthood, is based on social hierarchy. Hence, in romantic or marital relationships, men are usually the subject of ’hb and women the object. This, according to Ackerman, correlates with the human-divine relationship in Deuteronomy. Although the commandment to love God is clear, Ackerman (2002: 445) argued that obedience to it is never indicated in the texts. This led her to conclude that ’hb in BH denotes one-sided love; it is directed from those who have a higher social status (e.g., God, men) to those with a lower status (e.g., humans, women). This general one-sided love, according to Ackerman, entails both the political and the interpersonal components, which are the points of overlap between the two types of ’hb. In contrast to Moran (1963), Ackerman did identify a conceptual link between ’hb in interpersonal and human-di-vine contexts, and concluded that in both love is “a concept tinged with ambiguity and a certain fluidity of meaning” (Ackerman 2002: 457). One-sided love was also observed by van Wolde (2008) in regard to male-female relationships (see also Brenner 1997 on gender hierarchy in the domains of romance and sexuality). It is clear that Ackerman’s study attributed more complexity to ’hb, and stressed the concep-tual imagery-based association between its use in interpersonal and human-divine contexts, and the difficulty to distinguish between the two. What is less clear, however, is her decisive idea about the one-sidedness of love in the context of divinity, for which she claimed there is no indication for a human obedience to love God and, therefore, no such love exists. This point will be critically elaborated in Chapter 4. Lapsley’s (2003) work offers another significant contribution to the understanding of ’hb. Still within the context of Deuteronomy, she addressed some of the more problematic points in Moran’s (1963) analysis, such as the preclusion of other uses of ’hb in BH mentioned above, as well as other non-biblical sociocultural aspects. Lapsley’s (2003: 355) main claim was that the political sense of ’hb originated in the affectionate sense of the word that occurs in familial relationships. She not only recognised similarity and overlap between the different contexts in which ’hb occurs, as Ackerman (2002) did relating to the two types of love, but she pointed to a sensible direction in the process of conceptual transfer, i.e., from the human, intimate affec-tionate domain to the political domain. As a consequence, love in Deuteronomy (i.e., loyalty) is not purely behavioural, but must also contain human affectionate elements. Although Laps-ley criticised Moran’s (and others’) preclusion of other occurrences of ’hb outside the domain of politics, her study also does not examine the entire corpus of ’hb in BH. In a similar vein, Arnold (2011: 560–61) claimed that affective and cognitive aspects of love coexist in Deuteronomy, as two nuances of the same semantic field, which also applies to uses of ’hb outside Deuteronomy. Although the cognitive nuance, resulting in fidelity, may be stronger or more dominant in Deuteronomy, the use of ’hb there should not be reduced to the technical meaning of covenantal love; affection is certainly a component of it as well, Arnold argued. Recently, Grant (2019) took a similar approach, arguing that ’hb in Deuteronomy en-tails both action and affection. This is expressed in God’s love for Israel, as, for example, in Deut 4:37 and 7:8, and in Israel’s love for God, as in Deut 10:12. Grant (2019: 62) linked the


Chapter 3 ׀ 48

affectionate aspects of ’hb in Deuteronomy to emotional love in kinship relationaship, but she regarded God’s love of Israel as the source or model of humankind’s love for God.10 Still working within the context of Deuteronomy, though also moving beyond it, Lambert (2016) offered a different perspective of ’hb in this book. Lambert (2016: 350) considered love in this context as a social relationship, or a relational state, rather than strictly a feeling or action. In the context of marriage, Lambert (2016: 352) argued that ’hb decodes the “relational status”, which “is located not quite within the individual psyche but outside or beyond it: love takes place on the borderline of two beings”. Lambert’s perspective stressed social interaction and expanded the scope of the polysemy of ’hb. A comprehensive examination of ’hb in all its contexts was part of Bosman’s (2011) lexical study of the semantic field of affection, of which she considered ’hb to be the prototypical lexeme.11 Bosman examined the use of ’hb according to two main criteria, namely the concep-tual frames (i.e., context) in which it occurs and the identity of the subject and the object (i.e., human, deity, inanimate) in ’hb-constructions. Applying a cognitive linguistic approach, and in particular prototype theory, Bosman (2011: 205–6) concluded with a radial network (i.e., an inherent structure) of the semantic field of ’hb, according to which it is prototypically used in interpersonal frames such as kinship (i.e., marriage, parent-child relationships), romance, and friendship, and thus it prototypically refers to a human subject and object. Less typical, but still with human participants, are the frames of politics and adultery, followed by human love for God and, the least typical, human love for conduct and inanimate things. This type, Bosman (2011: 204–5) noted, mostly expresses a positive or negative judgment or evaluation, such as wisdom (positive) or bribery (negative). God as the subject of ’hb prototypically co-occurs with human objects, usually the Israelites, and is located outside the radial network of ’hb and connected to the different degrees of typicality. Within this network, ’hb is prototypically hi-erarchical (e.g., male/parent subject; female/child object). Bosman translated ’hb mainly as ‘love’ (sometimes also ‘affection’ or ‘liking’) and noted its different nuances in the different frames. For example (Bosman 2011: 203), in the frame of marriage she found ‘favouritism’ and ‘procreation’ to be significant aspects, while in parent-child relationships ‘favouritism’, ‘care’, and ‘discipline’ are significant aspects. Bosman’s comprehensive work provided a detailed and well-motivated semantic analysis of the polysemy of ’hb in BH, which consists of much more than interpersonal and human-divine relationships. Although according to her analysis ’hb does not exceed the domain of emotion, namely affection, and does not denote any other form of experience, she defined the diverse aspects and nuances of the lexeme, which may be interpreted as conduct or activities in some of the cases. However, her use of the notion of ‘(conceptual) frames’ (i.e., contexts) may some-times be confused with the different nuances or senses of ’hb. An example is when she said that in some cases “God’s love for people occurs in the Caring Frame” (p. 203), whereas she

10 Grant (2019: 63–64), however, emphasised the difference between God’s and Israel’s types of love expressed by two other roots, ḥšq and dbq. The former often denotes desire/lust/affectionate love/yearning/longing; the latter denotes ‘clinging’. The difference, according to her, is explained by the function of anthropomorphism, i.e., on the one hand, understanding God in human terms (e.g., love), on the other hand, emphasising the difference be-tween God and all that is not divine. 11 Bosman’s (2011) thesis also included near-synonyms of ’hb that, according to her, contribute to the understand-ing of this lexeme. Bosman (2011: 283) showed how each of these near synonyms is related to one or more of the prototypical frames of ’hb, namely marriage, parent-child relationship, romance, and friendship.

also uses ‘care’ as one of the nuances of a parent-child relationship within the kinship frame. In fact, the frames of ‘commitment’ and ‘election’ that she also used to characterise God’s love (p. 205) may be seen as aspects of ’hb within a given frame rather than as frames themselves. The problem with such an analysis is that each of the observed nuances of ’hb may also be regarded as a conceptual frame in which ’hb occurs, hence, it is not always clear what distin-guishes frames and senses or aspects of meaning from one another. Bosman’s prototypical model of ’hb implied a conceptual mapping from the human to the divine domain, according to which the use of ’hb in the latter is based on its use in the former. In other words, her analysis showed that the basic human intimate relationship serves as a conceptual model for other interpersonal, human-divine, human-inanimate, and divine-inani-mate relations and affinities. In particular, the external position of ’hb with God as subject in relation to the semantic field and the radial network (p. 205–6) clearly illustrates this. Bosman’s study furthermore provides quantitative support for some of the earlier hypotheses, such as those of Ackerman (2002) in regard to the one-sidedness in the use of ’hb, or Lapsley (2003), who regarded ’hb in the human domain, particularly in intimate relationships, as the prototyp-ical type of love. In a recent study, Vanderhooft (2018) examined the use of ’hb in BH against the background of its early West Semitic attestations, i.e., Proto-Sinaitic and Ugaritic. Although such attesta-tions are associated with reciprocal relationships between a deity and a human being, in BH, Vanderhooft (2018: 46) suggested that the semantic field of the root may have originated from (intimate) normative human relationships. He particularly mentioned the following interrelated domains: connubial, social, and individual disposition. Whereas the first two consist of human relationships and serve as the origin of the human-divine relationship, the third concerns human affinity with concrete and abstract inanimate things. Vanderhooft (2018: 51–54) argued that the connubial domain is mainly characterised by the element of volitional choice, usually by a human male, and thus an affective element as the core remains questionable. God’s love for a people, as a group and as individuals, emerges on the basis of these relationships. The social domain is volitional as well; it encodes a human/divine will toward another human, but in contexts other than intimate kinship. Outside kinship, Vanderhooft (2018: 52) claimed that the noun form of ’hb “cements relationships that permit the community to thrive”. Thus, according to him, in this domain ’hb is significant for the society. Also in the third domain, human indi-vidual disposition, Vanderhooft attributed a volitional, conscious choice to the meaning of ’hb. Like Bosman’s (2011) comprehensive study, his study also included inanimate objects of ’hb, although he did not examine every occurrence (also not in the other domains). Similar to Bosman’s (2011) prototypical model of ’hb, which is centred in the most intimate human rela-tionships, Vanderhooft suggested that these relationships could be considered as the origin of meaning. In contrast to Bosman, however, he doubted the affectedness of ’hb as a core element and stressed instead volition and choice. Vanderhooft’s ideas concerning the volitionality of ’hb in interpersonal and human-divine contexts, the use of ’hb outside the domain of kinship, and its significance to social order are particularly relevant to the present thesis and will be discussed in later chapters. Nikolsky (2019) took a cognitive-evolutionary approach to the examination of the verb ’hb (‘to love’) in BH, applying Donald’s (1991) three cognitive strategies (or stages) in the evolu-tion of human culture and cognition, from the non-symbolic cognition of animals to the fully



affectionate aspects of ’hb in Deuteronomy to emotional love in kinship relationaship, but she regarded God’s love of Israel as the source or model of humankind’s love for God.10 Still working within the context of Deuteronomy, though also moving beyond it, Lambert (2016) offered a different perspective of ’hb in this book. Lambert (2016: 350) considered love in this context as a social relationship, or a relational state, rather than strictly a feeling or action. In the context of marriage, Lambert (2016: 352) argued that ’hb decodes the “relational status”, which “is located not quite within the individual psyche but outside or beyond it: love takes place on the borderline of two beings”. Lambert’s perspective stressed social interaction and expanded the scope of the polysemy of ’hb. A comprehensive examination of ’hb in all its contexts was part of Bosman’s (2011) lexical study of the semantic field of affection, of which she considered ’hb to be the prototypical lexeme.11 Bosman examined the use of ’hb according to two main criteria, namely the concep-tual frames (i.e., context) in which it occurs and the identity of the subject and the object (i.e., human, deity, inanimate) in ’hb-constructions. Applying a cognitive linguistic approach, and in particular prototype theory, Bosman (2011: 205–6) concluded with a radial network (i.e., an inherent structure) of the semantic field of ’hb, according to which it is prototypically used in interpersonal frames such as kinship (i.e., marriage, parent-child relationships), romance, and friendship, and thus it prototypically refers to a human subject and object. Less typical, but still with human participants, are the frames of politics and adultery, followed by human love for God and, the least typical, human love for conduct and inanimate things. This type, Bosman (2011: 204–5) noted, mostly expresses a positive or negative judgment or evaluation, such as wisdom (positive) or bribery (negative). God as the subject of ’hb prototypically co-occurs with human objects, usually the Israelites, and is located outside the radial network of ’hb and connected to the different degrees of typicality. Within this network, ’hb is prototypically hi-erarchical (e.g., male/parent subject; female/child object). Bosman translated ’hb mainly as ‘love’ (sometimes also ‘affection’ or ‘liking’) and noted its different nuances in the different frames. For example (Bosman 2011: 203), in the frame of marriage she found ‘favouritism’ and ‘procreation’ to be significant aspects, while in parent-child relationships ‘favouritism’, ‘care’, and ‘discipline’ are significant aspects. Bosman’s comprehensive work provided a detailed and well-motivated semantic analysis of the polysemy of ’hb in BH, which consists of much more than interpersonal and human-divine relationships. Although according to her analysis ’hb does not exceed the domain of emotion, namely affection, and does not denote any other form of experience, she defined the diverse aspects and nuances of the lexeme, which may be interpreted as conduct or activities in some of the cases. However, her use of the notion of ‘(conceptual) frames’ (i.e., contexts) may some-times be confused with the different nuances or senses of ’hb. An example is when she said that in some cases “God’s love for people occurs in the Caring Frame” (p. 203), whereas she

10 Grant (2019: 63–64), however, emphasised the difference between God’s and Israel’s types of love expressed by two other roots, ḥšq and dbq. The former often denotes desire/lust/affectionate love/yearning/longing; the latter denotes ‘clinging’. The difference, according to her, is explained by the function of anthropomorphism, i.e., on the one hand, understanding God in human terms (e.g., love), on the other hand, emphasising the difference be-tween God and all that is not divine. 11 Bosman’s (2011) thesis also included near-synonyms of ’hb that, according to her, contribute to the understand-ing of this lexeme. Bosman (2011: 283) showed how each of these near synonyms is related to one or more of the prototypical frames of ’hb, namely marriage, parent-child relationship, romance, and friendship.

also uses ‘care’ as one of the nuances of a parent-child relationship within the kinship frame. In fact, the frames of ‘commitment’ and ‘election’ that she also used to characterise God’s love (p. 205) may be seen as aspects of ’hb within a given frame rather than as frames themselves. The problem with such an analysis is that each of the observed nuances of ’hb may also be regarded as a conceptual frame in which ’hb occurs, hence, it is not always clear what distin-guishes frames and senses or aspects of meaning from one another. Bosman’s prototypical model of ’hb implied a conceptual mapping from the human to the divine domain, according to which the use of ’hb in the latter is based on its use in the former. In other words, her analysis showed that the basic human intimate relationship serves as a conceptual model for other interpersonal, human-divine, human-inanimate, and divine-inani-mate relations and affinities. In particular, the external position of ’hb with God as subject in relation to the semantic field and the radial network (p. 205–6) clearly illustrates this. Bosman’s study furthermore provides quantitative support for some of the earlier hypotheses, such as those of Ackerman (2002) in regard to the one-sidedness in the use of ’hb, or Lapsley (2003), who regarded ’hb in the human domain, particularly in intimate relationships, as the prototyp-ical type of love. In a recent study, Vanderhooft (2018) examined the use of ’hb in BH against the background of its early West Semitic attestations, i.e., Proto-Sinaitic and Ugaritic. Although such attesta-tions are associated with reciprocal relationships between a deity and a human being, in BH, Vanderhooft (2018: 46) suggested that the semantic field of the root may have originated from (intimate) normative human relationships. He particularly mentioned the following interrelated domains: connubial, social, and individual disposition. Whereas the first two consist of human relationships and serve as the origin of the human-divine relationship, the third concerns human affinity with concrete and abstract inanimate things. Vanderhooft (2018: 51–54) argued that the connubial domain is mainly characterised by the element of volitional choice, usually by a human male, and thus an affective element as the core remains questionable. God’s love for a people, as a group and as individuals, emerges on the basis of these relationships. The social domain is volitional as well; it encodes a human/divine will toward another human, but in contexts other than intimate kinship. Outside kinship, Vanderhooft (2018: 52) claimed that the noun form of ’hb “cements relationships that permit the community to thrive”. Thus, according to him, in this domain ’hb is significant for the society. Also in the third domain, human indi-vidual disposition, Vanderhooft attributed a volitional, conscious choice to the meaning of ’hb. Like Bosman’s (2011) comprehensive study, his study also included inanimate objects of ’hb, although he did not examine every occurrence (also not in the other domains). Similar to Bosman’s (2011) prototypical model of ’hb, which is centred in the most intimate human rela-tionships, Vanderhooft suggested that these relationships could be considered as the origin of meaning. In contrast to Bosman, however, he doubted the affectedness of ’hb as a core element and stressed instead volition and choice. Vanderhooft’s ideas concerning the volitionality of ’hb in interpersonal and human-divine contexts, the use of ’hb outside the domain of kinship, and its significance to social order are particularly relevant to the present thesis and will be discussed in later chapters. Nikolsky (2019) took a cognitive-evolutionary approach to the examination of the verb ’hb (‘to love’) in BH, applying Donald’s (1991) three cognitive strategies (or stages) in the evolu-tion of human culture and cognition, from the non-symbolic cognition of animals to the fully


Chapter 3 ׀ 50

symbolic cognition of humans. Nikolsky examined occurrences of the verb in poetic (Song of Songs), narrative, and legal texts, as well as the actions with which they are associated (e.g., Song 3:2, where the teller, a young woman, goes out of the house in the middle of night and searches for her beloved one). She distinguished between three main types of meaning of ’hb that are parallel to the three cultural evolutionary stages respectively, namely ‘mimetic cogni-tion’, ‘mythic cognition’, and ‘theoretic cognition’. Nikolsky emphasised that the parallelism between text types and evolutionary stages by no means implies a diachronic relation between the texts and the cultural evolutionary stages, but it does associate the literary character of the texts with the different evolutionary stages. Mimetic cognition is characterised by the role of the human body in interpretation of the reality and communication through the involvement of different levels of perception (i.e., in-terpretation) and the production of action in different bodily systems, such as vocal and facial expressions. The mythic cognition signals the assignment of signs to specific meaning, and hence the emergence of language. Theoretic cognition concerns technological developments such as the writing systems, external memory (e.g., written signs and texts), and theories. Each stage correlates with a different type of presentation of the self, i.e., one’s expression of emo-tion, social status, and identity. In the mimetic context (Song of Songs), ’hb encodes an indi-vidual state, a one-sided feminine erotic obsession with irregular/abnormal behaviour that leads to sexual relations. In the mythic context (i.e., narratives), the verb also encodes the preference for a unique individual, for whom their social status does not normally dictate such a benefit. This preference is a transformation of the irregular behaviour caused by the obsession in the mimetic stage. In the context of theoretic cognition, ’hb denotes obedience to command and reward. Nikolsky’s analysis corresponded with Arnold’s (2011) idea of spectrum as an account for the polysemy or ambiguity of fear in 3.2.1 above. Similar to earlier studies, such as those of Lapsley (2003), Arnold (2011), and Mirguet (2016), Nikolsky accentuated the necessity of delineating between the notion of emotions in our modern time and that of ancient Israel. An example of her finding in this regard is the incentive role of ’hb as implied in some of its occurrences. In these occurrences, ’hb is clearly the motivation or driving force of activities. The type of such activities varied according to the cognitive-evolutionary stage with which the text is associated. Nikolsky’s study included only the verbal forms of ’hb, and therefore not an exhaustive corpus of all the root’s occurrences in all text types. Nevertheless, her focus on evolutionary process entailed a transformation from a more personal experience with a strong element of physical proximity to a more relational, social conduct, and in this sense is relevant to the present thesis which is characterised by a cognitive sociocultural approach. Wierzbicka’s (2019) recent work examines the concept of ‘love’ from the perspective of the bible. She includes both the Old Testament (and in particular the Septuagint, the Old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament. Her analysis of ’hb in BH, based on English translation (dictionaries), yields the following three types of love: (i) ‘people loving God’, (ii) ‘people loving people’, and (iii) ‘God loving people’. The first type is the command-ment to love God; the second is preference of one person over another, regardless of context (e.g. romance, kinship); the third is God’s preference of the people of Israel over other peoples. According to Wierzbicka preference is the common core of ’hb to all three types.

Some of Wierzbicka’s conclusions are plausible, as for example her observation about the conceptualisation of the peoples’ love for God as deeds and attitude. However, her study is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the study does not include the entire corpus of ’hb in BH and is based on translation to English. Second, and more important, Wierzbicka analyses the three types of ’hb on the basis of the NSM theoretical tool (see 2.3.1 above) as it is applied to English, which is the object of her study. Her conclusions about ’hb in BH are thus based on semantic components that may be appropriate for love in English but a straightforward map-ping of these semantic components to ’hb in BH is doubtable. Wierzbicka’s analysis of ’hb is not the main aim of her study, but her conclusions in this regard seem to reduce it to a much simpler concept than it is. Finally, another relevant study, although not about BH, is Marmelstein’s (2003) examination of love and hate in sectarian texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Taking a social-constructionist ap-proach (see Chapter 2), he shows how these emotions serve as means for communicating social norms and values in the texts. These norms and values concern the relation of the group to God and therefore also the emergence of the group’s identity: “Love of insiders and hate of outsiders were not simply the products of a tight-knit community estranged from the outside world. Ra-ther, love and hate served as vehicles for constructing and embracing the group’s distinctive worldview, according to which only the sect (sectarians, RV) enjoyed a covenantal relationship with God” (Marmelstein 2003: 263). Marmelstein’s study corresponds with Moran’s (1963) ‘covenantal love’ in BH through the association it draws between the role of God and humans within the sociocultural system. Taking the social-constructionist approach, his study further developed the functional role of emotions within this system. As will be shown in Chapter 6, this point also links Marmelstein (2003) to the present study; both emphasise a particular use of emotions in discourse, which reflects and singles out significant sociocultural values. How-ever, similar to the Moranian approach (though with different source and aims), Marmelstein (2003) was content with the social perspective and concentrated on the relations of the human with the divine within it.

3.3.2 Summary The overview above presents the important developments in the investigation of ’hb ‘love’ in BH. As was shown, the use of the lexeme in the human-divine context, and especially in Deu-teronomy, was for many decades the dominant perspective for understanding ’hb, with both proponents and opponents, and also when other contexts were considered (e.g., Ackerman 2002; Lapsley 2003). While this orientation has continued (e.g., Arnold 2011; Lambert 2016; Grant 2019), other studies, such as van Wolde 2008 on romance and marriage, have broadened the scope, though even these did not include the entire corpus of ’hb. A turning point was marked with the cognitive-semantic lexicographic study of Bosman (2011), which for the first time included every occurrence of ’hb in BH, defining it as the prototypical lexeme of affection, and treating it as a polysemous category on its own. The ideas of Vanderhooft (2018) accord well with Bosman’s prototypical model of ’hb, with interper-sonal, intimate relationships at its centre, although he did not conduct a comprehensive exam-ination but instead took a philological approach. Taking a different perspective, Nikolsky



symbolic cognition of humans. Nikolsky examined occurrences of the verb in poetic (Song of Songs), narrative, and legal texts, as well as the actions with which they are associated (e.g., Song 3:2, where the teller, a young woman, goes out of the house in the middle of night and searches for her beloved one). She distinguished between three main types of meaning of ’hb that are parallel to the three cultural evolutionary stages respectively, namely ‘mimetic cogni-tion’, ‘mythic cognition’, and ‘theoretic cognition’. Nikolsky emphasised that the parallelism between text types and evolutionary stages by no means implies a diachronic relation between the texts and the cultural evolutionary stages, but it does associate the literary character of the texts with the different evolutionary stages. Mimetic cognition is characterised by the role of the human body in interpretation of the reality and communication through the involvement of different levels of perception (i.e., in-terpretation) and the production of action in different bodily systems, such as vocal and facial expressions. The mythic cognition signals the assignment of signs to specific meaning, and hence the emergence of language. Theoretic cognition concerns technological developments such as the writing systems, external memory (e.g., written signs and texts), and theories. Each stage correlates with a different type of presentation of the self, i.e., one’s expression of emo-tion, social status, and identity. In the mimetic context (Song of Songs), ’hb encodes an indi-vidual state, a one-sided feminine erotic obsession with irregular/abnormal behaviour that leads to sexual relations. In the mythic context (i.e., narratives), the verb also encodes the preference for a unique individual, for whom their social status does not normally dictate such a benefit. This preference is a transformation of the irregular behaviour caused by the obsession in the mimetic stage. In the context of theoretic cognition, ’hb denotes obedience to command and reward. Nikolsky’s analysis corresponded with Arnold’s (2011) idea of spectrum as an account for the polysemy or ambiguity of fear in 3.2.1 above. Similar to earlier studies, such as those of Lapsley (2003), Arnold (2011), and Mirguet (2016), Nikolsky accentuated the necessity of delineating between the notion of emotions in our modern time and that of ancient Israel. An example of her finding in this regard is the incentive role of ’hb as implied in some of its occurrences. In these occurrences, ’hb is clearly the motivation or driving force of activities. The type of such activities varied according to the cognitive-evolutionary stage with which the text is associated. Nikolsky’s study included only the verbal forms of ’hb, and therefore not an exhaustive corpus of all the root’s occurrences in all text types. Nevertheless, her focus on evolutionary process entailed a transformation from a more personal experience with a strong element of physical proximity to a more relational, social conduct, and in this sense is relevant to the present thesis which is characterised by a cognitive sociocultural approach. Wierzbicka’s (2019) recent work examines the concept of ‘love’ from the perspective of the bible. She includes both the Old Testament (and in particular the Septuagint, the Old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament. Her analysis of ’hb in BH, based on English translation (dictionaries), yields the following three types of love: (i) ‘people loving God’, (ii) ‘people loving people’, and (iii) ‘God loving people’. The first type is the command-ment to love God; the second is preference of one person over another, regardless of context (e.g. romance, kinship); the third is God’s preference of the people of Israel over other peoples. According to Wierzbicka preference is the common core of ’hb to all three types.

Some of Wierzbicka’s conclusions are plausible, as for example her observation about the conceptualisation of the peoples’ love for God as deeds and attitude. However, her study is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the study does not include the entire corpus of ’hb in BH and is based on translation to English. Second, and more important, Wierzbicka analyses the three types of ’hb on the basis of the NSM theoretical tool (see 2.3.1 above) as it is applied to English, which is the object of her study. Her conclusions about ’hb in BH are thus based on semantic components that may be appropriate for love in English but a straightforward map-ping of these semantic components to ’hb in BH is doubtable. Wierzbicka’s analysis of ’hb is not the main aim of her study, but her conclusions in this regard seem to reduce it to a much simpler concept than it is. Finally, another relevant study, although not about BH, is Marmelstein’s (2003) examination of love and hate in sectarian texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Taking a social-constructionist ap-proach (see Chapter 2), he shows how these emotions serve as means for communicating social norms and values in the texts. These norms and values concern the relation of the group to God and therefore also the emergence of the group’s identity: “Love of insiders and hate of outsiders were not simply the products of a tight-knit community estranged from the outside world. Ra-ther, love and hate served as vehicles for constructing and embracing the group’s distinctive worldview, according to which only the sect (sectarians, RV) enjoyed a covenantal relationship with God” (Marmelstein 2003: 263). Marmelstein’s study corresponds with Moran’s (1963) ‘covenantal love’ in BH through the association it draws between the role of God and humans within the sociocultural system. Taking the social-constructionist approach, his study further developed the functional role of emotions within this system. As will be shown in Chapter 6, this point also links Marmelstein (2003) to the present study; both emphasise a particular use of emotions in discourse, which reflects and singles out significant sociocultural values. How-ever, similar to the Moranian approach (though with different source and aims), Marmelstein (2003) was content with the social perspective and concentrated on the relations of the human with the divine within it.

3.3.2 Summary The overview above presents the important developments in the investigation of ’hb ‘love’ in BH. As was shown, the use of the lexeme in the human-divine context, and especially in Deu-teronomy, was for many decades the dominant perspective for understanding ’hb, with both proponents and opponents, and also when other contexts were considered (e.g., Ackerman 2002; Lapsley 2003). While this orientation has continued (e.g., Arnold 2011; Lambert 2016; Grant 2019), other studies, such as van Wolde 2008 on romance and marriage, have broadened the scope, though even these did not include the entire corpus of ’hb. A turning point was marked with the cognitive-semantic lexicographic study of Bosman (2011), which for the first time included every occurrence of ’hb in BH, defining it as the prototypical lexeme of affection, and treating it as a polysemous category on its own. The ideas of Vanderhooft (2018) accord well with Bosman’s prototypical model of ’hb, with interper-sonal, intimate relationships at its centre, although he did not conduct a comprehensive exam-ination but instead took a philological approach. Taking a different perspective, Nikolsky


Chapter 3 ׀ 52

(2019) used a cultural-evolutionary approach, which contributed to our understanding of the evolution of ’hb, from an individual to a more social concept. These three studies, in their more general (i.e., non-thematic) outlook, further offered a way to approach the affective-cognitive distinction that occupied different previous scholars, in particular in the context of divinity. In their own way, each of these three studies thus opened a path forward toward an inclusive account of ’hb in BH, building on the earlier studies that contributed their thematic share. ’hb also shares common features with other emotions in BH. The association relation be-tween this lexeme, fear, and anger was already mentioned in regard to human-divine relation-ships and hierarchy. More generally, it is clear that, similar to other emotions,’hb is a multifac-eted semantically rich category that involves, emotive, volitional, behavioural, and active as-pects, and which can be described in terms of prototypicality or spectrum, to which different imagery models can be applied. Thus far, the main development in the study of ’hb concerns an expansion of the scope, from specific thematic or contextual examinations to an examination (of the entire corpus) from other perspectives, such as philology, lexicology, and cultural-evolution. The polysemous character of ’hb, the diversity of contexts, and the not-always obvious relations between them raise the possibility that this lexeme plays a significant role in BH, which reaches beyond its lexical meanings. This calls for further investigation of ’hb with the express aim of exploring the common underlying conceptions that may motivate its diverse use. This idea is further elaborated in the following section. 3.4 ’hb in the present thesis 3.4.1 Aims The main aim of the present thesis is to explore the possible role that ’hb plays in BH and the sociocultural conceptions underlying this role. In particular, the thesis concentrates on the so-cial order of the ancient Israelite culture as a significant conceptual source for the use of ’hb in BH. Earlier studies have in different ways shown parallels between the use of ’hb in intimate, interpersonal relationships and in human-divine relationships, or between human-divine rela-tionships and politics; some of these focussed on the social hierarchical aspects of ’hb, while others emphasised the cognitive and affective aspects. All these studies showed that ’hb is strongly associated with different levels of the ancient Israelite sociocultural system as re-flected in the Hebrew Bible, and therefore motivate a sociocultural approach. It is the aim here to specify this association, to reveal underlying conceptions in the ancient social order that may explain the use of ’hb in the different (con)texts of BH and to explore how this lexeme may influence the way social order is presented and entrenched in the texts. These aims can be formulated in the following question: How does the use of ’hb reflect and/or constitute the social order of ancient Israel? The present thesis may thus be seen as a continuation of earlier studies, but with its own unique contribution, namely it aims to offer a comprehensive coherent understanding of this lexeme as a significant sociocultural theme in the Hebrew Bible.

3.4.2 Theoretical-methodological approach The approach to ’hb in this thesis is cognitive-linguistic with a sociocultural perspective. With attention to the linguistic and biblical contexts of the occurrences—prototypical as well as mar-ginal—this thesis carefully examines the cognitive sociocultural models that arise in the texts. The present thesis is foremost based on the texts (their content as well as their linguistic forms), regarding them as an equivalent for language use and a source of sociocultural themes and concepts. Accordingly, the aim here is to deduce as much as possible from the text without concern for preconceptions about biblical themes and concepts. In order to reach the goals, this investigation of ’hb is based on a corpus study, giving an exhaustive dataset of every occurrence of the lexeme. The dataset was annotated according to the linguistic and biblical contexts with emphasis on sociocultural information, and the statis-tics of the annotation yield patterns in the use of ’hb. Due to the limited volume of the corpus (i.e., 252 occurrences) and the source (the Hebrew Bible), the statistics are mainly explorative rather than decisive, meant to convey general patterns or tendencies. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise stated, ’hb is generally translated here as ‘love’. The different nuances and meanings, and relations between them, are explained on the basis of context (linguistic as well as biblical) and other relevant factors.



(2019) used a cultural-evolutionary approach, which contributed to our understanding of the evolution of ’hb, from an individual to a more social concept. These three studies, in their more general (i.e., non-thematic) outlook, further offered a way to approach the affective-cognitive distinction that occupied different previous scholars, in particular in the context of divinity. In their own way, each of these three studies thus opened a path forward toward an inclusive account of ’hb in BH, building on the earlier studies that contributed their thematic share. ’hb also shares common features with other emotions in BH. The association relation be-tween this lexeme, fear, and anger was already mentioned in regard to human-divine relation-ships and hierarchy. More generally, it is clear that, similar to other emotions,’hb is a multifac-eted semantically rich category that involves, emotive, volitional, behavioural, and active as-pects, and which can be described in terms of prototypicality or spectrum, to which different imagery models can be applied. Thus far, the main development in the study of ’hb concerns an expansion of the scope, from specific thematic or contextual examinations to an examination (of the entire corpus) from other perspectives, such as philology, lexicology, and cultural-evolution. The polysemous character of ’hb, the diversity of contexts, and the not-always obvious relations between them raise the possibility that this lexeme plays a significant role in BH, which reaches beyond its lexical meanings. This calls for further investigation of ’hb with the express aim of exploring the common underlying conceptions that may motivate its diverse use. This idea is further elaborated in the following section. 3.4 ’hb in the present thesis 3.4.1 Aims The main aim of the present thesis is to explore the possible role that ’hb plays in BH and the sociocultural conceptions underlying this role. In particular, the thesis concentrates on the so-cial order of the ancient Israelite culture as a significant conceptual source for the use of ’hb in BH. Earlier studies have in different ways shown parallels between the use of ’hb in intimate, interpersonal relationships and in human-divine relationships, or between human-divine rela-tionships and politics; some of these focussed on the social hierarchical aspects of ’hb, while others emphasised the cognitive and affective aspects. All these studies showed that ’hb is strongly associated with different levels of the ancient Israelite sociocultural system as re-flected in the Hebrew Bible, and therefore motivate a sociocultural approach. It is the aim here to specify this association, to reveal underlying conceptions in the ancient social order that may explain the use of ’hb in the different (con)texts of BH and to explore how this lexeme may influence the way social order is presented and entrenched in the texts. These aims can be formulated in the following question: How does the use of ’hb reflect and/or constitute the social order of ancient Israel? The present thesis may thus be seen as a continuation of earlier studies, but with its own unique contribution, namely it aims to offer a comprehensive coherent understanding of this lexeme as a significant sociocultural theme in the Hebrew Bible.

3.4.2 Theoretical-methodological approach The approach to ’hb in this thesis is cognitive-linguistic with a sociocultural perspective. With attention to the linguistic and biblical contexts of the occurrences—prototypical as well as mar-ginal—this thesis carefully examines the cognitive sociocultural models that arise in the texts. The present thesis is foremost based on the texts (their content as well as their linguistic forms), regarding them as an equivalent for language use and a source of sociocultural themes and concepts. Accordingly, the aim here is to deduce as much as possible from the text without concern for preconceptions about biblical themes and concepts. In order to reach the goals, this investigation of ’hb is based on a corpus study, giving an exhaustive dataset of every occurrence of the lexeme. The dataset was annotated according to the linguistic and biblical contexts with emphasis on sociocultural information, and the statis-tics of the annotation yield patterns in the use of ’hb. Due to the limited volume of the corpus (i.e., 252 occurrences) and the source (the Hebrew Bible), the statistics are mainly explorative rather than decisive, meant to convey general patterns or tendencies. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise stated, ’hb is generally translated here as ‘love’. The different nuances and meanings, and relations between them, are explained on the basis of context (linguistic as well as biblical) and other relevant factors.


Chapter 4. The social-hierarchical character of ’hb 4.1 Introduction and working hypothesis As was outlined in the literature overview in Chapter 3, the majority of the occurrences of ’hb in Biblical Hebrew (BH) involve interpersonal relationships; a smaller, though substantial, number involves human-divine relationships, and an even smaller number concerns human or divine attitudes and affinity with conduct, concrete objects, or abstract things. These and other studies also emphasise the general hierarchical character of ’hb in at least some of its contexts. Based on similar observations, the present thesis characterises ’hb generally as a social expe-rience with differing degrees of affection and intimacy, and further elaborates on this character through the aspects of social interactions, volition, activeness, and conduct. The present thesis views social experience as the prototypical aspect of ’hb in the Hebrew Bible, and shows how other aspects are intertwined with it. The clear socialness of this lexeme, it will be shown, entails its hierarchical character and not the other way round. As in Lapsley (2003), Bosman (2011), Vanderhooft (2018), and Nikolsky (2019), human (physical) relationships are seen here as the conceptual core in the use of ’hb in BH, on which basic human-divine relationships and other uses of the lexeme emerge. With the aim to further specify and refine the social-hierar-chical character of ’hb, the present chapter is the first step toward a comprehensive definition of the sociocultural profile of ’hb and its role in the social order of ancient Israel as reflected in BH. Social hierarchy in the use of ’hb can manifest itself through the following related general patterns: (i) unidirectionality, and (ii) semantic asymmetry. In regard to the former, a difference in social status between human participants in ’hb-events leads to the prototypical direction from a lover with a higher social status to a beloved with a lower social status. Social status may be based on social roles (e.g., God vs. humans; king vs. servant; parent vs. child) or gender. As will be shown throughout the text, social roles and gender in BH are strongly related, and the distinction between the two is not straightforward. In marriage and parenthood relation-ships, for example, ’hb is always unidirectional, i.e., the lover is always a husband/parent and the beloved is always a wife/child. The dominant unidirectionality in the use of ’hb is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Low social status High social status Figure 4.1: Dominant unidirectionality in the use of ʾhb in

interpersonal contexts. The thick arrow in Figure 4.1 marks the prototypical direction, from higher to lower status in the use of ’hb; the thin arrow marks the atypical direction, from lower to higher social status. The latter pattern occurs only where social status affects, not the direction, but rather the meaning of ’hb. The lover may have either a higher (divine) or a lower (human) social status than the beloved, but in these cases the social status determines the meaning. This pattern is


Chapter 4. The social-hierarchical character of ’hb 4.1 Introduction and working hypothesis As was outlined in the literature overview in Chapter 3, the majority of the occurrences of ’hb in Biblical Hebrew (BH) involve interpersonal relationships; a smaller, though substantial, number involves human-divine relationships, and an even smaller number concerns human or divine attitudes and affinity with conduct, concrete objects, or abstract things. These and other studies also emphasise the general hierarchical character of ’hb in at least some of its contexts. Based on similar observations, the present thesis characterises ’hb generally as a social expe-rience with differing degrees of affection and intimacy, and further elaborates on this character through the aspects of social interactions, volition, activeness, and conduct. The present thesis views social experience as the prototypical aspect of ’hb in the Hebrew Bible, and shows how other aspects are intertwined with it. The clear socialness of this lexeme, it will be shown, entails its hierarchical character and not the other way round. As in Lapsley (2003), Bosman (2011), Vanderhooft (2018), and Nikolsky (2019), human (physical) relationships are seen here as the conceptual core in the use of ’hb in BH, on which basic human-divine relationships and other uses of the lexeme emerge. With the aim to further specify and refine the social-hierar-chical character of ’hb, the present chapter is the first step toward a comprehensive definition of the sociocultural profile of ’hb and its role in the social order of ancient Israel as reflected in BH. Social hierarchy in the use of ’hb can manifest itself through the following related general patterns: (i) unidirectionality, and (ii) semantic asymmetry. In regard to the former, a difference in social status between human participants in ’hb-events leads to the prototypical direction from a lover with a higher social status to a beloved with a lower social status. Social status may be based on social roles (e.g., God vs. humans; king vs. servant; parent vs. child) or gender. As will be shown throughout the text, social roles and gender in BH are strongly related, and the distinction between the two is not straightforward. In marriage and parenthood relation-ships, for example, ’hb is always unidirectional, i.e., the lover is always a husband/parent and the beloved is always a wife/child. The dominant unidirectionality in the use of ’hb is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Low social status High social status Figure 4.1: Dominant unidirectionality in the use of ʾhb in

interpersonal contexts. The thick arrow in Figure 4.1 marks the prototypical direction, from higher to lower status in the use of ’hb; the thin arrow marks the atypical direction, from lower to higher social status. The latter pattern occurs only where social status affects, not the direction, but rather the meaning of ’hb. The lover may have either a higher (divine) or a lower (human) social status than the beloved, but in these cases the social status determines the meaning. This pattern is


Chapter 4 ׀ 56

termed here ‘semantic asymmetry’ and is found exclusively in the context of divinity, i.e., human-divine relationships, as the examples in (1) illustrate. (1) a. raq ba’ăbōtêkā ḥāšaq yāhwəh lə’ahăbâ ’ôtām wayyibḥar bəzar‘ām ’aḥărêhem bākem mikkol-hā‘ammîm kayyôm hazzeh

‘Only on your fathers Yhwh set his heart, to love them; he had chosen you, their seed, after them, of all the peoples as it is this day.’ (Deut 10:15)

b. wə’āhabtā ’ēt yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkā, wəšāmartā mišmartô wəḥuwqqōtāyw

ûmišpāṭāyw ûmiṣwōtāyw kol-hayyāmîm ‘You shall love Yhwh your god, you shall keep his charge and his decrees

and his judgements and his commandments all the days.’ (Deut 11:1) What (1) shows is that the asymmetry is indicated by the semantic nuances. In (1a), ’hb in-volves the senses of preference and choice, i.e., Yhwh’s love for the ancestors is a choice or a preference; in (1b) such senses are clearly not part of the meaning. Instead, ’hb is commanded and implies the expectation for obedience. This asymmetry entails different degrees of volition in the meaning of ’hb that correlate with the identity of the lover, namely when the lover is God and the beloved is human the degree of volition is higher than when the lover is human and God is the beloved. Figure 4.2 illustrates the asymmetry in the meaning of ’hb in the con-text of divinity.

humans God (obedience, condition) VOLITION (choice, preference)

Figure 4.2: Semantic asymmetry of ʾhb in the context of divinity The thick arrow at the top marks the prototypical volitional use of ’hb when God is the lover and the beloved is human; the thin arrow marks the atypical volitional use of ’hb when the lover is human and the beloved is God or a God-related inanimate thing (e.g., God’s command-ment). It is important to stress at this point that volition in this context is different from the, perhaps more obvious, volition associated with romantic love and which may be understood as an in-herent component of it, as indicated in different languages worldwide (see the recent study of Jackson et al. 2019). Rather, volition in this context is a conscious choice that drives the expe-rience or activity of ’hb-events. Whereas spontaneous love is incentive for volitional action, such as benefitting the beloved (Nikolsky 2019), the conceptualisation of ’hb in the present context is of volitional conduct. Thus ’hb itself, and not its consequences, is volitional. Both patterns are thus social-hierarchical and based on the social identity of the lover and the beloved; in the former (unidirectionality), the social identity determines who the lover and who the beloved is (e.g., husband and wife, resp.) and in the latter (asymmetry) the social identity determines the meaning of ’hb. Figure 4.3 illustrates the relation and difference be-tween the two patterns.

Social Identity (H/L status)

Unidirectionality Semantic asymmetry (lover has higher (Higher degree of volition

status than beloved) when lover is God) Figure 4.3: Hierarchical patterns in the use of ’hb, based on the social identity of lover and beloved

The hierarchical use of ’hb was observed in earlier studies, with some differences in definition, for example, Ackerman’s (2002) and Bosman’s (2011) ‘one-sidedness’ (see Chapter 3). As will be argued in 4.2.1–2, the use of ‘asymmetry’ here to describe the character of ’hb in the context of the human-divine relationship seems more adequate. The observed hierarchical patterns in the usage of ’hb may suggest that ’hb is inherently hierarchical; that is, the core meaning of this lexeme entails a hierarchical element, such as in the case of ṣwh ( הוצ ) ‘command’, where the commander always has a higher status than the commanded. However, the entire distribution of ’hb suggests that this lexeme is not inherently hierarchical, as it may potentially be attributed to all members of the society, regardless of gender, social status, function, or other markers of identity. The atypical occurrences of ’hb, for example when the lover is a woman (Song 1:3) or a slave (Exod 21:5), involve a basic semantic essence of this lexeme that is independent of social identity. In other words, the ability to experience what ’hb denotes is not an exclusive property of individuals with a higher social status or function. In the context of divinity, either God or humans may be in the position of the lover (i.e., the experiencer) when ’hb is used; the same applies for men and women in the context of romance, and for slaves in the context of social relations. Furthermore, affection/at-tachment and intimacy in BH are often expressed by figurative or implicit language, as in (2). (2) a. wayyiqqaḥ ’et-ribqâ wattəhî-lô lə’iššâ waye’ĕhābehā wayyinnāḥēm yiṣḥāq

’aḥărê ’immô ‘He took Rebecca, she became his wife and he loved her. Isaac was

comforted after his mother (his mother’s death).’ (Gen 24:67) b. wəlārāš ’ên-kŏl kî ’im-kibśâ ’aḥat qəṭannâ ’ăšer qānâ wayḥayyehā

wattigdal ‘immô wə‘im-bānāyw yaḥdāw mippittô tō’kal ûmikkōsô tišteh ûbəḥêqô tiškāb, wattəhî-lô kəbat ‘And the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had

bought and brought up; it grew up with him and with his sons; it did eat of his own food and drank from his cup, and lay in his bosom, and was like a daughter to him.’ (2Sam 12:3)


The social-hierarchical character of ’hb 57 ׀

termed here ‘semantic asymmetry’ and is found exclusively in the context of divinity, i.e., human-divine relationships, as the examples in (1) illustrate. (1) a. raq ba’ăbōtêkā ḥāšaq yāhwəh lə’ahăbâ ’ôtām wayyibḥar bəzar‘ām ’aḥărêhem bākem mikkol-hā‘ammîm kayyôm hazzeh

‘Only on your fathers Yhwh set his heart, to love them; he had chosen you, their seed, after them, of all the peoples as it is this day.’ (Deut 10:15)

b. wə’āhabtā ’ēt yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkā, wəšāmartā mišmartô wəḥuwqqōtāyw

ûmišpāṭāyw ûmiṣwōtāyw kol-hayyāmîm ‘You shall love Yhwh your god, you shall keep his charge and his decrees

and his judgements and his commandments all the days.’ (Deut 11:1) What (1) shows is that the asymmetry is indicated by the semantic nuances. In (1a), ’hb in-volves the senses of preference and choice, i.e., Yhwh’s love for the ancestors is a choice or a preference; in (1b) such senses are clearly not part of the meaning. Instead, ’hb is commanded and implies the expectation for obedience. This asymmetry entails different degrees of volition in the meaning of ’hb that correlate with the identity of the lover, namely when the lover is God and the beloved is human the degree of volition is higher than when the lover is human and God is the beloved. Figure 4.2 illustrates the asymmetry in the meaning of ’hb in the con-text of divinity.

humans God (obedience, condition) VOLITION (choice, preference)

Figure 4.2: Semantic asymmetry of ʾhb in the context of divinity The thick arrow at the top marks the prototypical volitional use of ’hb when God is the lover and the beloved is human; the thin arrow marks the atypical volitional use of ’hb when the lover is human and the beloved is God or a God-related inanimate thing (e.g., God’s command-ment). It is important to stress at this point that volition in this context is different from the, perhaps more obvious, volition associated with romantic love and which may be understood as an in-herent component of it, as indicated in different languages worldwide (see the recent study of Jackson et al. 2019). Rather, volition in this context is a conscious choice that drives the expe-rience or activity of ’hb-events. Whereas spontaneous love is incentive for volitional action, such as benefitting the beloved (Nikolsky 2019), the conceptualisation of ’hb in the present context is of volitional conduct. Thus ’hb itself, and not its consequences, is volitional. Both patterns are thus social-hierarchical and based on the social identity of the lover and the beloved; in the former (unidirectionality), the social identity determines who the lover and who the beloved is (e.g., husband and wife, resp.) and in the latter (asymmetry) the social identity determines the meaning of ’hb. Figure 4.3 illustrates the relation and difference be-tween the two patterns.

Social Identity (H/L status)

Unidirectionality Semantic asymmetry (lover has higher (Higher degree of volition

status than beloved) when lover is God) Figure 4.3: Hierarchical patterns in the use of ’hb, based on the social identity of lover and beloved

The hierarchical use of ’hb was observed in earlier studies, with some differences in definition, for example, Ackerman’s (2002) and Bosman’s (2011) ‘one-sidedness’ (see Chapter 3). As will be argued in 4.2.1–2, the use of ‘asymmetry’ here to describe the character of ’hb in the context of the human-divine relationship seems more adequate. The observed hierarchical patterns in the usage of ’hb may suggest that ’hb is inherently hierarchical; that is, the core meaning of this lexeme entails a hierarchical element, such as in the case of ṣwh ( הוצ ) ‘command’, where the commander always has a higher status than the commanded. However, the entire distribution of ’hb suggests that this lexeme is not inherently hierarchical, as it may potentially be attributed to all members of the society, regardless of gender, social status, function, or other markers of identity. The atypical occurrences of ’hb, for example when the lover is a woman (Song 1:3) or a slave (Exod 21:5), involve a basic semantic essence of this lexeme that is independent of social identity. In other words, the ability to experience what ’hb denotes is not an exclusive property of individuals with a higher social status or function. In the context of divinity, either God or humans may be in the position of the lover (i.e., the experiencer) when ’hb is used; the same applies for men and women in the context of romance, and for slaves in the context of social relations. Furthermore, affection/at-tachment and intimacy in BH are often expressed by figurative or implicit language, as in (2). (2) a. wayyiqqaḥ ’et-ribqâ wattəhî-lô lə’iššâ waye’ĕhābehā wayyinnāḥēm yiṣḥāq

’aḥărê ’immô ‘He took Rebecca, she became his wife and he loved her. Isaac was

comforted after his mother (his mother’s death).’ (Gen 24:67) b. wəlārāš ’ên-kŏl kî ’im-kibśâ ’aḥat qəṭannâ ’ăšer qānâ wayḥayyehā

wattigdal ‘immô wə‘im-bānāyw yaḥdāw mippittô tō’kal ûmikkōsô tišteh ûbəḥêqô tiškāb, wattəhî-lô kəbat ‘And the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had

bought and brought up; it grew up with him and with his sons; it did eat of his own food and drank from his cup, and lay in his bosom, and was like a daughter to him.’ (2Sam 12:3)


Chapter 4 ׀ 58

The example in (2a) suggests the possibility that the love Isaac had for his wife Rebecca com-pensated for the loss of his mother. This, in turn, implies that he also loved or had affection for his mother, though neither this nor any other child’s affectionate feelings for their parents are explicitly expressed by the use of ’hb in BH. In (2b), a fable is used by the prophet Nathan to illustrate to David his own iniquity regarding Uriah. The affection that the poor man feels for his lamb is expressed by a series of prepositional constructions that intensifies this affection and compares it to the love a father feels for his own daughter. Love and affection may thus be expressed in different ways, through the use of (non)figurative, explicit and implicit language, and a mere lexicographic investigation is therefore insufficient. The literary nature of the biblical texts may motivate this alternating use of language, but the use of implicit language to convey intimate, affective relationships may also be motivated by other factors. Pawlak (2009: 107), for example, argued that “cultural norms may not allow the use of direct emotion words” in certain African languages, and instead the implicit expres-sion of emotion through metaphors is a common property of these languages. Whether or not Pawlak’s observation is likewise applicable to BH and the ancient spoken variant of it is hard to say, since the only available attestation of the use of this language is the texts of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, the relevant underlying idea is that the ways of expressing emotion in a given language may be driven by cultural-social norms and values (see the discussion of the social-constructionist approach in Chapter 2, and also Wilce 2009; Batic 2011, 2017). Accord-ingly, the use of ’hb to describe an emotional experience in BH cannot be understood inde-pendently of sociocultural aspects of ancient Israelite society. More specifically, the conceptual association between this lexeme and social hierarchy seems to be culture-driven rather than semantic. The distribution of ’hb and the expression of love and affection by means of figurative and other implicit ways show that although ’hb is the prototypical (most frequent) lexeme of affec-tion in BH, it does not exhaustively express the conception of affection and love in this lan-guage, and certainly not in intimate, interpersonal relationships. Rather, the use of ’hb reflects and, more importantly, stresses the relationships in the sociocultural system of the ancient Is-raelite culture. Such an underlying sociocultural motivation is indicated in yet another way. In addition to the observed social patterns, it was mentioned that ’hb is also used to denote the affinity of humans and/or God (i.e., as lover) with inanimate things (concrete as well as abstract) or con-duct (i.e., as beloved), as in the examples in (3). (3) a. qənēh ḥokmâ, qənēh bînâ […]; ’al-ta‘azbehā wətišmərekkā; ’ĕhābehā

wətiṣṣərekkā ‘Get wisdom, get understanding […]; love it (wisdom) and it will guard you.’ (Prov 4:5–6)

b. ’al-te’ĕhab šēnâ pen-tiwwārēš; pəqaḥ ‘ênêykā śəba‘-lāḥem

‘Do not love sleep lest you will become poor; open your eyes and you shall be satisfied with bread.’ (Prov 20:13) In such occurrences, ’hb does not simply denote affinity, but is instead used to convey an

evaluation of the beloved, which can be either positive or negative. The instruction to love wisdom in (3a) emphasises the importance of wisdom by associating it with ’hb, as this would be rewarded with security. In (3b), love for or affinity with sleep (i.e., during daytime) receives a negative evaluation, again through its association with ’hb, but this time in the use of a nega-tion-instruction. In contrast to the love for wisdom which is rewarded, the love for sleep during the day is a symbol of laziness and leads to a negative consequence, namely poverty. Such an evaluation of affinity with inanimate things and conduct need not necessarily be expressed through the use of ’hb, since imperative constructions that either forbid or instruct one to do something could equally convey the same message, as in (4). (4) šəma‘ bənî mûsar ’ābîkā wə’al-tiṭṭōš tôrat ’immekā

‘Hear, my son, your father’s reproach, and do not forsake your mother’s lesson.’ (Prov 1:8)

The use of ’hb in association with inanimate things, conduct, and activities thus seems to have a specific purpose, namely to emphasise certain ideologies present in ancient Israelite society by associating them with ’hb or its negation, as will be further elaborated (see also Bosman 2011: 204). The overall usage of ’hb entails a conceptual association between this lexeme and the social order, in which social hierarchy and social ideology are the building blocks. This can be sum-marised in the following twofold hypothesis. Working hypothesis:

I. The lexeme ’hb is not inherently hierarchical; rather its use in Biblical Hebrew is pro-totypically social hierarchical.

II. The prototypical social hierarchical use of ’hb plays a role in the social order of ancient Israel as it is reflected in the biblical texts; the non-inherent hierarchical nature of ’hb in the texts implies that this lexeme also serves a contextual purpose.

In the following section, the observed patterns in the usage of ’hb are discussed in detail. 4.2 ʾhb in BH 4.2.1 Cultural domains The lexeme ’hb occurs 252 times in BH, in different types of texts, and its use indicates its polysemy. One way to understand ’hb is by considering the cultural domains in which it occurs. Cultural domains are the metalinguistic contexts within the biblical texts that concern the an-cient Israelite culture at different levels. This distinction between cultural domains in the pre-sent thesis is based on the distribution of ’hb over the entire corpus rather than in specific books, text types, or biblical themes. Hence, the cultural domains distinguished here are based



The example in (2a) suggests the possibility that the love Isaac had for his wife Rebecca com-pensated for the loss of his mother. This, in turn, implies that he also loved or had affection for his mother, though neither this nor any other child’s affectionate feelings for their parents are explicitly expressed by the use of ’hb in BH. In (2b), a fable is used by the prophet Nathan to illustrate to David his own iniquity regarding Uriah. The affection that the poor man feels for his lamb is expressed by a series of prepositional constructions that intensifies this affection and compares it to the love a father feels for his own daughter. Love and affection may thus be expressed in different ways, through the use of (non)figurative, explicit and implicit language, and a mere lexicographic investigation is therefore insufficient. The literary nature of the biblical texts may motivate this alternating use of language, but the use of implicit language to convey intimate, affective relationships may also be motivated by other factors. Pawlak (2009: 107), for example, argued that “cultural norms may not allow the use of direct emotion words” in certain African languages, and instead the implicit expres-sion of emotion through metaphors is a common property of these languages. Whether or not Pawlak’s observation is likewise applicable to BH and the ancient spoken variant of it is hard to say, since the only available attestation of the use of this language is the texts of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, the relevant underlying idea is that the ways of expressing emotion in a given language may be driven by cultural-social norms and values (see the discussion of the social-constructionist approach in Chapter 2, and also Wilce 2009; Batic 2011, 2017). Accord-ingly, the use of ’hb to describe an emotional experience in BH cannot be understood inde-pendently of sociocultural aspects of ancient Israelite society. More specifically, the conceptual association between this lexeme and social hierarchy seems to be culture-driven rather than semantic. The distribution of ’hb and the expression of love and affection by means of figurative and other implicit ways show that although ’hb is the prototypical (most frequent) lexeme of affec-tion in BH, it does not exhaustively express the conception of affection and love in this lan-guage, and certainly not in intimate, interpersonal relationships. Rather, the use of ’hb reflects and, more importantly, stresses the relationships in the sociocultural system of the ancient Is-raelite culture. Such an underlying sociocultural motivation is indicated in yet another way. In addition to the observed social patterns, it was mentioned that ’hb is also used to denote the affinity of humans and/or God (i.e., as lover) with inanimate things (concrete as well as abstract) or con-duct (i.e., as beloved), as in the examples in (3). (3) a. qənēh ḥokmâ, qənēh bînâ […]; ’al-ta‘azbehā wətišmərekkā; ’ĕhābehā

wətiṣṣərekkā ‘Get wisdom, get understanding […]; love it (wisdom) and it will guard you.’ (Prov 4:5–6)

b. ’al-te’ĕhab šēnâ pen-tiwwārēš; pəqaḥ ‘ênêykā śəba‘-lāḥem

‘Do not love sleep lest you will become poor; open your eyes and you shall be satisfied with bread.’ (Prov 20:13) In such occurrences, ’hb does not simply denote affinity, but is instead used to convey an

evaluation of the beloved, which can be either positive or negative. The instruction to love wisdom in (3a) emphasises the importance of wisdom by associating it with ’hb, as this would be rewarded with security. In (3b), love for or affinity with sleep (i.e., during daytime) receives a negative evaluation, again through its association with ’hb, but this time in the use of a nega-tion-instruction. In contrast to the love for wisdom which is rewarded, the love for sleep during the day is a symbol of laziness and leads to a negative consequence, namely poverty. Such an evaluation of affinity with inanimate things and conduct need not necessarily be expressed through the use of ’hb, since imperative constructions that either forbid or instruct one to do something could equally convey the same message, as in (4). (4) šəma‘ bənî mûsar ’ābîkā wə’al-tiṭṭōš tôrat ’immekā

‘Hear, my son, your father’s reproach, and do not forsake your mother’s lesson.’ (Prov 1:8)

The use of ’hb in association with inanimate things, conduct, and activities thus seems to have a specific purpose, namely to emphasise certain ideologies present in ancient Israelite society by associating them with ’hb or its negation, as will be further elaborated (see also Bosman 2011: 204). The overall usage of ’hb entails a conceptual association between this lexeme and the social order, in which social hierarchy and social ideology are the building blocks. This can be sum-marised in the following twofold hypothesis. Working hypothesis:



In the following section, the observed patterns in the usage of ’hb are discussed in detail. 4.2 ʾhb in BH 4.2.1 Cultural domains The lexeme ’hb occurs 252 times in BH, in different types of texts, and its use indicates its polysemy. One way to understand ’hb is by considering the cultural domains in which it occurs. Cultural domains are the metalinguistic contexts within the biblical texts that concern the an-cient Israelite culture at different levels. This distinction between cultural domains in the pre-sent thesis is based on the distribution of ’hb over the entire corpus rather than in specific books, text types, or biblical themes. Hence, the cultural domains distinguished here are based


Chapter 4 ׀ 60

purely on the contexts in which the lexeme occurs as understood from the text. In this way, the domain of Kinship, for example, is not necessarily restricted to narratives in which kin relations are central, but may also contain occurrences of ’hb in wisdom texts and in legal texts that concern kin matters, such as the raising of children. The distribution of ’hb over different cul-tural domains evidences its relation to a broad range of themes, from intimate human relation-ships to politics, from mundane activities to religious ones, from concrete objects to virtues, and from sensory perception to cognition. The distribution of ’hb yielded the following nine cultural domains: Divinity (i.e., human-divine relations and God/human affinity with divine-related, inanimate things such as God’s commandments or name), Kinship, Adultery, Ro-mance, Social Relations, Politics, Conduct/Activity, Inanimate Concrete Objects, and Inani-mate Abstract Objects.12 An examination of the occurrences of ’hb reveals that it is most often associated with the domain of Divinity. However, the relative dominance of Divinity in the use of ’hb may simply reflect the prominence of this concept in the Hebrew Bible and not neces-sarily an extraordinary association between Divinity and ’hb. Further examination will show that, although the domain of Divinity indeed dominates many of the contexts in BH, its rela-tively strong association with ’hb has a particular significance for the meaning of this lexeme. Figure 4.4 presents the proportions of the occurrences of ’hb in the nine cultural domains and in their three general types. While ’hb occurs most frequently in the single domain of Divinity, the five human (inter-personal) domains together yield a higher frequency of the lexeme than the former. The cate-gory of human domains consists of Kinship, Adultery, Romance, Social Relations, and Politics. Thus, ’hb more frequently occurs in interpersonal relationships than in human-divine relation-ships, although it is relatively less frequent in each of the interpersonal sub-domains than in Divinity. Apart from the interpersonal and divine domains, 23% of the occurrences of ’hb are in the concrete and abstract inanimate domains, including also conduct and activities. These categories consist of ’hb-events with an inanimate participant in the role of the beloved, either concrete, abstract, or conduct/activity. These categories do not include such events from the context of divinity or other distinctive contexts, but encode a general human propensity. Ex-amples of inanimate beloved objects are food (e.g., Gen 27:4, 9, 14), money and wealth (Eccl 5:9), language (Prov 18:21), and conflict (Prov 17:19). ’hb-events with an inanimate beloved object and a distinctive context are categorised with the relevant cultural domains (e.g., events with God’s commandments, laws, or name as the beloved are categorised with the domain of Divinity). The overall distribution of ’hb can thus be summarised with the following three do-main-clusters: interpersonal, divine, and inanimate, as presented in Figure 4.4.

12 These cultural domains are partly comparable with Bosman’s (2011) ‘conceptual frames’. Her starting point, however, was the identity of the subject of ’hb (i.e., human or God), and, as was argued in Chapter 3, some of these conceptual frames may in fact be alternated with certain aspects of the meaning of ’hb.

Figure 4.4: Distribution of ’hb (proportions) over different cultural domains

and proportions of ’hb in interpersonal, divine, and inanimate domain-clusters (DIV=Divinity, INABS=Inanimate Abstract Objects, ROM=Romance, KIN=Kinship, SOC=Social Rela-

tions, POL=Politics, COND=Conduct/Activity, ADULT=Adultery, INCON=Inanimate Concrete Objects. 0.05=5%, 1=100%)

4.2.2 Male-dominance and gender-based hierarchy As part of the observed social-hierarchy discussed in 4.1, a general male-dominance in the use of ’hb in BH is clearly indicated by the relatively more frequent occurrence of men than women in the roles of lover and beloved. Figure 4.5 presents the differences in the proportion of gender representation across all the cultural domains.

Figure 4.5: Differences in proportions gender of lover and beloved The two gender categories constitute 41% (85 occurrences) of all the lovers, and 30% (77 oc-currences) of the beloved. Men and women without individual or social identity, and humans with no gender specification (referred to by the masculine generic form [MG]), are not included

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

DIVINABS

ROM KIN SO

CPOL

COND

ADULT

INCON

Interpersonal

Divine

Inanim

ate

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Lover BelovedM F



purely on the contexts in which the lexeme occurs as understood from the text. In this way, the domain of Kinship, for example, is not necessarily restricted to narratives in which kin relations are central, but may also contain occurrences of ’hb in wisdom texts and in legal texts that concern kin matters, such as the raising of children. The distribution of ’hb over different cul-tural domains evidences its relation to a broad range of themes, from intimate human relation-ships to politics, from mundane activities to religious ones, from concrete objects to virtues, and from sensory perception to cognition. The distribution of ’hb yielded the following nine cultural domains: Divinity (i.e., human-divine relations and God/human affinity with divine-related, inanimate things such as God’s commandments or name), Kinship, Adultery, Ro-mance, Social Relations, Politics, Conduct/Activity, Inanimate Concrete Objects, and Inani-mate Abstract Objects.12 An examination of the occurrences of ’hb reveals that it is most often associated with the domain of Divinity. However, the relative dominance of Divinity in the use of ’hb may simply reflect the prominence of this concept in the Hebrew Bible and not neces-sarily an extraordinary association between Divinity and ’hb. Further examination will show that, although the domain of Divinity indeed dominates many of the contexts in BH, its rela-tively strong association with ’hb has a particular significance for the meaning of this lexeme. Figure 4.4 presents the proportions of the occurrences of ’hb in the nine cultural domains and in their three general types. While ’hb occurs most frequently in the single domain of Divinity, the five human (inter-personal) domains together yield a higher frequency of the lexeme than the former. The cate-gory of human domains consists of Kinship, Adultery, Romance, Social Relations, and Politics. Thus, ’hb more frequently occurs in interpersonal relationships than in human-divine relation-ships, although it is relatively less frequent in each of the interpersonal sub-domains than in Divinity. Apart from the interpersonal and divine domains, 23% of the occurrences of ’hb are in the concrete and abstract inanimate domains, including also conduct and activities. These categories consist of ’hb-events with an inanimate participant in the role of the beloved, either concrete, abstract, or conduct/activity. These categories do not include such events from the context of divinity or other distinctive contexts, but encode a general human propensity. Ex-amples of inanimate beloved objects are food (e.g., Gen 27:4, 9, 14), money and wealth (Eccl 5:9), language (Prov 18:21), and conflict (Prov 17:19). ’hb-events with an inanimate beloved object and a distinctive context are categorised with the relevant cultural domains (e.g., events with God’s commandments, laws, or name as the beloved are categorised with the domain of Divinity). The overall distribution of ’hb can thus be summarised with the following three do-main-clusters: interpersonal, divine, and inanimate, as presented in Figure 4.4.

12 These cultural domains are partly comparable with Bosman’s (2011) ‘conceptual frames’. Her starting point, however, was the identity of the subject of ’hb (i.e., human or God), and, as was argued in Chapter 3, some of these conceptual frames may in fact be alternated with certain aspects of the meaning of ’hb.

Figure 4.4: Distribution of ’hb (proportions) over different cultural domains

and proportions of ’hb in interpersonal, divine, and inanimate domain-clusters (DIV=Divinity, INABS=Inanimate Abstract Objects, ROM=Romance, KIN=Kinship, SOC=Social Rela-

tions, POL=Politics, COND=Conduct/Activity, ADULT=Adultery, INCON=Inanimate Concrete Objects. 0.05=5%, 1=100%)

4.2.2 Male-dominance and gender-based hierarchy As part of the observed social-hierarchy discussed in 4.1, a general male-dominance in the use of ’hb in BH is clearly indicated by the relatively more frequent occurrence of men than women in the roles of lover and beloved. Figure 4.5 presents the differences in the proportion of gender representation across all the cultural domains.

Figure 4.5: Differences in proportions gender of lover and beloved The two gender categories constitute 41% (85 occurrences) of all the lovers, and 30% (77 oc-currences) of the beloved. Men and women without individual or social identity, and humans with no gender specification (referred to by the masculine generic form [MG]), are not included

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

DIVINABS

ROM KIN SO

CPOL

COND

ADULT

INCON

Interpersonal

Divine

Inanim

ate

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Lover BelovedM F


Chapter 4 ׀ 62

in this figure and constitute a different category.13 Of the 85 men and women lovers, man ap-pears as the most frequent lover (90%) and beloved (65%). Thus, men appear more often than women in the role of both the lover and the beloved. The general male dominance in the distribution of ’hb in BH correlates with a general pattern in the biblical texts, according to which men are usually the prominent figures (see also Acker-man 2002; Nikolsky 2019). Men are more often the protagonists of narratives, and men usually hold the higher positions in society, such as king, judge, chief, prophet, and priest. This male dominance reflects the broader social structure of ancient Israel, a hierarchical culture of king-ship and a patriarchal system, where kings as well as subordinate leaders were almost exclu-sively men (see Doob Sakenfeld 1987, and Noll 2013). Accordingly, women only rarely hold high social positions, but are more typically identified either as mothers, sisters, and wives, or else have no specific social identity. A number of counter-examples are noteworthy, namely the prophetess Deborah in the book of Judges 4–5, the prophetess Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14, and Athaliah in 2 Kings (11), who, in fact, appointed herself to reign over the land for several years. By all counts, women with a specific social identity, such as ‘wife’, ‘mother’, or ‘daugh-ter of king’ occur less frequently (15%) in the role of the lover than men with equivalent iden-tities, i.e., ‘father’, ‘brother’, or ‘son’ (85%). The occurrences of a beloved specifically identi-fied as a woman (i.e., by name), on the other hand, are slightly more frequent (54%) than those with a specifically-identified man (46%). As will be shown in 4.2.3, the difference in represen-tation of gender in the kin-relationship is of particular interest, as it indicates a gender-based hierarchy beyond the general male dominance. Nevertheless, the ease with which gender-based hierarchy in the use of ’hb can be constituted as a central characteristic pattern in BH may be misleading. As will be shown in the following chapters (especially Chapter 6), the present comprehensive examination enables a more nu-anced context-based conclusion about the centrality of gender in the use of ’hb. For the time being, ‘gender-based hierarchy’ refers to a general, relative observation. Another salient finding in the use of ’hb in BH concerns the abovementioned affinity with inanimate things or conduct/activity. In particular, 31% of the objects of ’hb (i.e., the beloved) in all three domain-clusters are concrete and abstract inanimate things or activities. Inanimate objects were examined also in relation to the three main types of animacy in the roles of the lover and beloved, namely human (H), deity (DEI), and inanimate (INAN). Figure 4.6 presents the difference in proportions between the three categories. The category of humans (H) consists of men, women, and the masculine generic (MG).

13 It is important to note that the masculine generic category (MG) does not refer to a group of male-humans, such as soldiers for example, but only to mixed-gender groups or groups without gender specification such as a people.

Figure 4.6: Differences in proportion between animacy of lover and beloved

In summary, ’hb occurs in a broad range of cultural domains, which can be grouped into three main clusters, namely interpersonal, divine, and inanimate. The interpersonal cluster consists of cultural domains in which ’hb denotes different types of human relationships with differing degrees of intimacy. In the divine cluster, ’hb denotes human-divine relationships of two kinds based on the identity of the lover and beloved (i.e., asymmetry) and the affinity of humans or God with God-related inanimate things. In the latter cluster, ’hb denotes the affinity of humans with concrete and abstracts inanimate things. In the majority of the overall occurrences, ’hb denotes interpersonal emotion, bonding, affinity, or attraction. The use of ’hb seems to be pro-totypically constrained by the social status of the participants in ’hb-events. Although the iden-tity of the beloved is in principle not constrained (e.g., divine, human, inanimate), it is more often a human male than any of the other types, while an inanimate object as the beloved occurs more frequently than either a divine or a human female beloved. In the following sections, the main findings are discussed within the context of each of the nine cultural domains. 4.3 The use of ’hb in nine cultural domains 4.3.1 ʾhb in the cultural domain of Divinity About 33% of the occurrences of ’hb in BH are related to the cultural domain of Divinity. As was already noted, both humans and God may be the lover and beloved in this domain. With 48 occurrences (59%) out of 81 lovers, humans occur more frequently as lovers than God (38%); the remaining 3% have an inanimate lover (i.e., a female-gendered metonymy-based personification of Jerusalem). Women with individual identities (i.e., not implied by the use of the masculine generic form) do not occur in this domain, and their absence indicates an absolute male-dominance rather than a gender-based hierarchy. Gender-based hierarchy can only be identified when men and women are introduced in the text by their individual identities (i.e., name) or functions (e.g., father/mother, brother/sister) and not by the frequent masculine ge-neric form that may often refer to women as well. The masculine generic is often used when ’hb refers to the people as a group without gender specification or uses a masculine singular form as a representative of the people. This form is quite common in legislation texts and in

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

H DEI INAN

lover beloved



in this figure and constitute a different category.13 Of the 85 men and women lovers, man ap-pears as the most frequent lover (90%) and beloved (65%). Thus, men appear more often than women in the role of both the lover and the beloved. The general male dominance in the distribution of ’hb in BH correlates with a general pattern in the biblical texts, according to which men are usually the prominent figures (see also Acker-man 2002; Nikolsky 2019). Men are more often the protagonists of narratives, and men usually hold the higher positions in society, such as king, judge, chief, prophet, and priest. This male dominance reflects the broader social structure of ancient Israel, a hierarchical culture of king-ship and a patriarchal system, where kings as well as subordinate leaders were almost exclu-sively men (see Doob Sakenfeld 1987, and Noll 2013). Accordingly, women only rarely hold high social positions, but are more typically identified either as mothers, sisters, and wives, or else have no specific social identity. A number of counter-examples are noteworthy, namely the prophetess Deborah in the book of Judges 4–5, the prophetess Huldah in 2 Kings 22:14, and Athaliah in 2 Kings (11), who, in fact, appointed herself to reign over the land for several years. By all counts, women with a specific social identity, such as ‘wife’, ‘mother’, or ‘daugh-ter of king’ occur less frequently (15%) in the role of the lover than men with equivalent iden-tities, i.e., ‘father’, ‘brother’, or ‘son’ (85%). The occurrences of a beloved specifically identi-fied as a woman (i.e., by name), on the other hand, are slightly more frequent (54%) than those with a specifically-identified man (46%). As will be shown in 4.2.3, the difference in represen-tation of gender in the kin-relationship is of particular interest, as it indicates a gender-based hierarchy beyond the general male dominance. Nevertheless, the ease with which gender-based hierarchy in the use of ’hb can be constituted as a central characteristic pattern in BH may be misleading. As will be shown in the following chapters (especially Chapter 6), the present comprehensive examination enables a more nu-anced context-based conclusion about the centrality of gender in the use of ’hb. For the time being, ‘gender-based hierarchy’ refers to a general, relative observation. Another salient finding in the use of ’hb in BH concerns the abovementioned affinity with inanimate things or conduct/activity. In particular, 31% of the objects of ’hb (i.e., the beloved) in all three domain-clusters are concrete and abstract inanimate things or activities. Inanimate objects were examined also in relation to the three main types of animacy in the roles of the lover and beloved, namely human (H), deity (DEI), and inanimate (INAN). Figure 4.6 presents the difference in proportions between the three categories. The category of humans (H) consists of men, women, and the masculine generic (MG).

13 It is important to note that the masculine generic category (MG) does not refer to a group of male-humans, such as soldiers for example, but only to mixed-gender groups or groups without gender specification such as a people.

Figure 4.6: Differences in proportion between animacy of lover and beloved

In summary, ’hb occurs in a broad range of cultural domains, which can be grouped into three main clusters, namely interpersonal, divine, and inanimate. The interpersonal cluster consists of cultural domains in which ’hb denotes different types of human relationships with differing degrees of intimacy. In the divine cluster, ’hb denotes human-divine relationships of two kinds based on the identity of the lover and beloved (i.e., asymmetry) and the affinity of humans or God with God-related inanimate things. In the latter cluster, ’hb denotes the affinity of humans with concrete and abstracts inanimate things. In the majority of the overall occurrences, ’hb denotes interpersonal emotion, bonding, affinity, or attraction. The use of ’hb seems to be pro-totypically constrained by the social status of the participants in ’hb-events. Although the iden-tity of the beloved is in principle not constrained (e.g., divine, human, inanimate), it is more often a human male than any of the other types, while an inanimate object as the beloved occurs more frequently than either a divine or a human female beloved. In the following sections, the main findings are discussed within the context of each of the nine cultural domains. 4.3 The use of ’hb in nine cultural domains 4.3.1 ʾhb in the cultural domain of Divinity About 33% of the occurrences of ’hb in BH are related to the cultural domain of Divinity. As was already noted, both humans and God may be the lover and beloved in this domain. With 48 occurrences (59%) out of 81 lovers, humans occur more frequently as lovers than God (38%); the remaining 3% have an inanimate lover (i.e., a female-gendered metonymy-based personification of Jerusalem). Women with individual identities (i.e., not implied by the use of the masculine generic form) do not occur in this domain, and their absence indicates an absolute male-dominance rather than a gender-based hierarchy. Gender-based hierarchy can only be identified when men and women are introduced in the text by their individual identities (i.e., name) or functions (e.g., father/mother, brother/sister) and not by the frequent masculine ge-neric form that may often refer to women as well. The masculine generic is often used when ’hb refers to the people as a group without gender specification or uses a masculine singular form as a representative of the people. This form is quite common in legislation texts and in

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

H DEI INAN

lover beloved


Chapter 4 ׀ 64

wisdom texts where instructions and prescriptions are given in the perfect-consecutive form (i.e. wə’āhabtā ‘you shall love’) that denotes an imperative, and the infinitive form lə’ahăbâ ‘to love’ that often appears in a complement of an imperative clause. The relatively high fre-quency with which the masculine generic occurs, especially in the role of the lover (39% of the lovers and 22% of the beloved), entails the general inclusion of women as part of the people. The consequence is that there is no clear evidence for a conceptual dissociation between ’hb and women in respect to divinity. Figure 4.7 presents the differences in the proportion of oc-currences between human, divine, and inanimate lover and beloved. Figure 4.8 shows the be-loved-types per each of the four lover-types (x-axis): masculine-generic, deity, man, and inan-imate.

Figure 4.7: Differences in proportions between animacy of lover

and beloved in Divinity domain

Figure 4.8: Differences in proportions between animacy of beloved

in Divinity domain As the figure shows, the masculine generic is the most frequent beloved-type of a deity as lover and a deity is most frequently the beloved of the masculine generic lover. God-human interac-tions encoded by ’hb thus concern more often the humans as a group, i.e. the people, than

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

DEI H INAN

Lover Beloved

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

MG DEI M INAN

DEI MG M INAN

individuals. God-related inanimate beloved, such as God’s commandments, are more frequent with an individual human (a man) lover than with humans as a group (the masculine generic). Besides male-dominance, another specific manifestation of social hierarchy in this domain is the previously-mentioned asymmetry in the meaning of ’hb based on the identity of the lover (human or divine), and which can be mainly characterised by the notion of volition; this is, in fact, a relative or gradual volition: when God is the lover the degree of volition is higher than when humans are in this position. The relatively higher degree of volition is indicated by the clear senses of choice and preference that are more often part of the meaning of ’hb when God is the lover, and a general sense of obedience to or acceptance of the commandment to love God that only occurs when the lover is human (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3 above). This command-ment comes from God himself and is transferred to the people by Moses as part of the general laws, as in (5), and recurs twice later with the leader Joshua in the book of Joshua (22:5; 23:11). (5) wə’āhabttā ’ēt yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkā bəkol-ləbābkā ûbəkol-napšəkā ûbəkol- mə’ōdekā

‘You shall love Yhwh your God with all your heart and with all you soul and in all your might.’ (Deut 6:5)

This basic commandment often occurs in the form of implied condition, as in (6). (6) wəhāyâ ’im-šāmō‘a tišmə‘û ’el-miṣwōtay ’ăšer ’ānōkî məṣawweh ’etkēm hayyôm

lə’ahăbâ ’et-yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêykem ûlə‘ābdô bəkol-ləbabkem ûbəkol napšəkem wənātattîi məṭar-’arṣəkem bə‘ittô yôreh ûmalqôš wə’āsaptā dəgānekā wətîrōškā wəyiṣhārekā. ‘And if you will obey (lit. hear) my commandments which I command you today, to love Yhwh your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, then I shall give the rain of your land in its season, the first rain and the latter rain, that you will gather your grain, your wine, and your oil.’ (Deut 11:13-14)

The example in (6) is a more complex version of the commandment to love God, which is embedded in a conditional construction. The commandment segment of this example is a rep-etition of the basic commandment in (5). Together with the addition of the commandment to serve God it becomes the protasis, a precondition for the ability to conduct husbandry, which is dependent on seasons of rain without suffering from drought (the apodosis). Although love for God is commanded and would ensure the prevention of drought, the conditional construc-tion makes clear that obedience is a matter of decision made by those who are commanded. Hence, if love for God indeed occurs it is a result of some consideration and thus to some extent volitional. The apodosis in (6) is part of the more general consequence of obedience to the commandment, namely the inheritance of the promised land and the ability to conduct a peace-ful, protected life in it for many generations. What is here defined as asymmetry (in particular the commandment to love God) has at-tracted the attention of several previous scholars. As was discussed in Chapter 3, both Moran’s (1963) ‘covenantal love’ and Ackerman’s (2002) hierarchical ‘one-sided’ love distinguished between affective love in other relationships and the non-affective, behavioural, commanded love in Deuteronomy. Later studies, by contrast, did not exclude affectedness from the meaning



wisdom texts where instructions and prescriptions are given in the perfect-consecutive form (i.e. wə’āhabtā ‘you shall love’) that denotes an imperative, and the infinitive form lə’ahăbâ ‘to love’ that often appears in a complement of an imperative clause. The relatively high fre-quency with which the masculine generic occurs, especially in the role of the lover (39% of the lovers and 22% of the beloved), entails the general inclusion of women as part of the people. The consequence is that there is no clear evidence for a conceptual dissociation between ’hb and women in respect to divinity. Figure 4.7 presents the differences in the proportion of oc-currences between human, divine, and inanimate lover and beloved. Figure 4.8 shows the be-loved-types per each of the four lover-types (x-axis): masculine-generic, deity, man, and inan-imate.

Figure 4.7: Differences in proportions between animacy of lover

and beloved in Divinity domain

Figure 4.8: Differences in proportions between animacy of beloved

in Divinity domain As the figure shows, the masculine generic is the most frequent beloved-type of a deity as lover and a deity is most frequently the beloved of the masculine generic lover. God-human interac-tions encoded by ’hb thus concern more often the humans as a group, i.e. the people, than

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

DEI H INAN

Lover Beloved

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

MG DEI M INAN

DEI MG M INAN

individuals. God-related inanimate beloved, such as God’s commandments, are more frequent with an individual human (a man) lover than with humans as a group (the masculine generic). Besides male-dominance, another specific manifestation of social hierarchy in this domain is the previously-mentioned asymmetry in the meaning of ’hb based on the identity of the lover (human or divine), and which can be mainly characterised by the notion of volition; this is, in fact, a relative or gradual volition: when God is the lover the degree of volition is higher than when humans are in this position. The relatively higher degree of volition is indicated by the clear senses of choice and preference that are more often part of the meaning of ’hb when God is the lover, and a general sense of obedience to or acceptance of the commandment to love God that only occurs when the lover is human (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3 above). This command-ment comes from God himself and is transferred to the people by Moses as part of the general laws, as in (5), and recurs twice later with the leader Joshua in the book of Joshua (22:5; 23:11). (5) wə’āhabttā ’ēt yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkā bəkol-ləbābkā ûbəkol-napšəkā ûbəkol- mə’ōdekā

‘You shall love Yhwh your God with all your heart and with all you soul and in all your might.’ (Deut 6:5)

This basic commandment often occurs in the form of implied condition, as in (6). (6) wəhāyâ ’im-šāmō‘a tišmə‘û ’el-miṣwōtay ’ăšer ’ānōkî məṣawweh ’etkēm hayyôm

lə’ahăbâ ’et-yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêykem ûlə‘ābdô bəkol-ləbabkem ûbəkol napšəkem wənātattîi məṭar-’arṣəkem bə‘ittô yôreh ûmalqôš wə’āsaptā dəgānekā wətîrōškā wəyiṣhārekā. ‘And if you will obey (lit. hear) my commandments which I command you today, to love Yhwh your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, then I shall give the rain of your land in its season, the first rain and the latter rain, that you will gather your grain, your wine, and your oil.’ (Deut 11:13-14)

The example in (6) is a more complex version of the commandment to love God, which is embedded in a conditional construction. The commandment segment of this example is a rep-etition of the basic commandment in (5). Together with the addition of the commandment to serve God it becomes the protasis, a precondition for the ability to conduct husbandry, which is dependent on seasons of rain without suffering from drought (the apodosis). Although love for God is commanded and would ensure the prevention of drought, the conditional construc-tion makes clear that obedience is a matter of decision made by those who are commanded. Hence, if love for God indeed occurs it is a result of some consideration and thus to some extent volitional. The apodosis in (6) is part of the more general consequence of obedience to the commandment, namely the inheritance of the promised land and the ability to conduct a peace-ful, protected life in it for many generations. What is here defined as asymmetry (in particular the commandment to love God) has at-tracted the attention of several previous scholars. As was discussed in Chapter 3, both Moran’s (1963) ‘covenantal love’ and Ackerman’s (2002) hierarchical ‘one-sided’ love distinguished between affective love in other relationships and the non-affective, behavioural, commanded love in Deuteronomy. Later studies, by contrast, did not exclude affectedness from the meaning


Chapter 4 ׀ 66

of ’hb in Deuteronomy (e.g., Lapsley 2003; Arnold 2011; Grant 2019). Since the present investigation is based on cultural domains rather than on specific texts or books, it is also necessary to examine the use of ’hb in the domain of Divinity outside of Deu-teronomy. Beyond this book, the people’s love for God is not expressed by the imperative form, but both the idea of the commandment and God’s love for the people are recurring themes that are presented in different ways. In Psalms, for example, obedience to this and other com-mandments of God expressed by ’hb are quite explicit, and imply volitional acceptance or choice to obey, as in (7), where the poet uses ’hb to express a first person volitional devotion to the commandments of God.

(7) wə’ešta‘ăša‘ bəmiṣwōtêkā ’ăšer ’āhābtî ‘I will be delighted in your commandments, which I love.’ (Psa 119:47) Not only does he choose to obey the commandments, he also loves them. In other occurrences, as in (8), volition is implied in other ways. (8) wə’attâ yiśrā’ēl ‘abdî ya‘ăqōb ’ăšer bəḥartîkā zera‘ ’abrāhām ’ōhăbî

‘But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my devotee/he who loved me.’ (Is 41:8)

Abraham, the first ancestor of Israel, was devoted to God, obeyed his commandments, and always kept the covenant between them, which was dictated by God. Nowhere in the text is it said that he was commanded to love God or his commandments by the use of ’hb. Yet, in the example above, and also in 2 Chronicles (20:7), Abraham’s devotion to God is denoted by ’hb and implies more freedom of choice than spontaneous affinity. In both texts ’hb occurs in the participle form ’oheb (singular masculine) of the qal stem with a genitive suffix that marks the beloved (in (8), first person masculine singular). This form, often translated in English as ‘(my) friend’, means ‘he who loves (me)’. In (9), where the lover does not have an individual identity but is encoded by the masculine generic form, ’ohabaw ‘those who love him’, ’hb suggests the existence of some amount of volition. Here, the contrast between the reward of ‘those who love him’ in the first part and the punishment of the wicked in the second part is what implies a choice, and hence volition. The psalm entails a conscious choice between being a lover/devotee of God or being wicked, and further suggests that loving God is the opposite of being wicked. (9) šômēr yāhwəh ’et kol-’ōhăbāyw wə’et kol-harəšā‘îm yašmîd

‘Yhwh watches/guards all those who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy.’ (Psa 145:20)

Ackerman (2002: 445–47) rightly pointed to the fact that, in spite of the commandment to love God, humans’ love for God is not attested in Deuteronomy and also not in the prophetic texts that deal with God’s reconciliation after he has punished the people for disobeying his com-mandments. Although the commandment to love God in Deuteronomy is explicit and not in doubt, nowhere in this book it is indicated that humans did love God. In the prophetic texts, for example Jer 30–33, she argued that God’s love for the people is restored, even though there is

no indication of the people’s love for God. Thus, according to Ackerman, even when the peo-ple’s love for God would be expected from the context it does not occur, and this fits her more general idea about ’hb as a hierarchy-based one-sided concept (i.e., directed from higher to lower social status and not the other way around). I argue that Ackerman’s claim does not contradict either the bidirectional use of ’hb observed here or the observed asymmetric char-acter of ’hb in the Divinity domain. The essential nature and core meaning of ’hb in this do-main, when the lover is human, is determined by the commandment and its required obedience. Regardless of the theological relevance that obedience to the commandment entails, whether or not this commandment is obeyed does not change the essential nature and core meaning of ’hb in the Divinity domain, which remains asymmetric. The conceptual association between ’hb and human love for God, I argue, is indicated by the commandment, which determines the direction of ’hb from the people to God whether it happens (reported in the text) or not. When ’hb is directed from humans to God it is prototypically based on the commandment. Stated differently, the imperative form of ’hb in the context of Divinity and the underlying idea of obedience to the commandment indicate an ancient (Israelite) conception according to which such a dictated human affective attitude toward a deity is not only possible, but is even ideal. As was shown above with (7)–(9), such obedience entails some amount of volition. Bosman (2011) distinguished between the use of ’hb when God is the lover and the beloved is human and the counter occurrences with human lovers, acknowledging the non-hierarchical character of the latter. According to her, the concepts of ‘election’ and ‘commitment’ are the prototypical characteristics of ’hb when the lover is God, while the commanded use of ’hb characterises occurrences with human lovers. She did not, however, attribute the notion of vo-lition to either of the two uses of ’hb in this domain. Vanderhooft (2018: 50), on the other hand, saw the volitionality in God’s love as a metaphoric extension of love in the marriage relation-ship, arguing that “The initiation of the relationship is analogous to the voluntary act of a man expressing love for a woman: it is predicated in a choice, an act of volition.” Vanderhooft does not provide the exact sources of such predication, and volitionality in the domain of marriage may exist to some extent but it is not expressed by the use of ’hb, which implies more sponta-neous affinity and attachment than a conscious choice or preference. Volitionality related to ’hb-events in these contexts is driven by the spontaneous experience. For example, the insist-ence of Jacob on marrying Rachel and twice accepting her father’s condition, in Gen 29, is volitional, but it was driven by his spontaneous affection/attraction/desire toward her. Simi-larly, Elkanah’s special treatment of his beloved wife Hannah in 1Sam 1:5, is a volitional con-duct, but what drives this conduct is his spontaneous affection toward her. The overall pattern is clear: ’hb in the domain of Divinity prototypically entails a choice or preference when God is in the position of the lover. When humans are in this position, it pro-totypically entails volitional obedience if the beloved is God, with an even higher degree of volition if the beloved is a divinely-related thing, such as God’s name, commandments, or laws. Although notions such as choice and volition are strongly associated with humans, in the cultural domain of Divinity volition in human lovers is usually driven by commandment. Fur-thermore, obedience is not associated with God as the lover in any of the occurrences. The volitional aspect of ’hb and its implications will be elaborated in Chapters 5 and 6.



of ’hb in Deuteronomy (e.g., Lapsley 2003; Arnold 2011; Grant 2019). Since the present investigation is based on cultural domains rather than on specific texts or books, it is also necessary to examine the use of ’hb in the domain of Divinity outside of Deu-teronomy. Beyond this book, the people’s love for God is not expressed by the imperative form, but both the idea of the commandment and God’s love for the people are recurring themes that are presented in different ways. In Psalms, for example, obedience to this and other com-mandments of God expressed by ’hb are quite explicit, and imply volitional acceptance or choice to obey, as in (7), where the poet uses ’hb to express a first person volitional devotion to the commandments of God.

(7) wə’ešta‘ăša‘ bəmiṣwōtêkā ’ăšer ’āhābtî ‘I will be delighted in your commandments, which I love.’ (Psa 119:47) Not only does he choose to obey the commandments, he also loves them. In other occurrences, as in (8), volition is implied in other ways. (8) wə’attâ yiśrā’ēl ‘abdî ya‘ăqōb ’ăšer bəḥartîkā zera‘ ’abrāhām ’ōhăbî

‘But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my devotee/he who loved me.’ (Is 41:8)

Abraham, the first ancestor of Israel, was devoted to God, obeyed his commandments, and always kept the covenant between them, which was dictated by God. Nowhere in the text is it said that he was commanded to love God or his commandments by the use of ’hb. Yet, in the example above, and also in 2 Chronicles (20:7), Abraham’s devotion to God is denoted by ’hb and implies more freedom of choice than spontaneous affinity. In both texts ’hb occurs in the participle form ’oheb (singular masculine) of the qal stem with a genitive suffix that marks the beloved (in (8), first person masculine singular). This form, often translated in English as ‘(my) friend’, means ‘he who loves (me)’. In (9), where the lover does not have an individual identity but is encoded by the masculine generic form, ’ohabaw ‘those who love him’, ’hb suggests the existence of some amount of volition. Here, the contrast between the reward of ‘those who love him’ in the first part and the punishment of the wicked in the second part is what implies a choice, and hence volition. The psalm entails a conscious choice between being a lover/devotee of God or being wicked, and further suggests that loving God is the opposite of being wicked. (9) šômēr yāhwəh ’et kol-’ōhăbāyw wə’et kol-harəšā‘îm yašmîd

‘Yhwh watches/guards all those who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy.’ (Psa 145:20)

Ackerman (2002: 445–47) rightly pointed to the fact that, in spite of the commandment to love God, humans’ love for God is not attested in Deuteronomy and also not in the prophetic texts that deal with God’s reconciliation after he has punished the people for disobeying his com-mandments. Although the commandment to love God in Deuteronomy is explicit and not in doubt, nowhere in this book it is indicated that humans did love God. In the prophetic texts, for example Jer 30–33, she argued that God’s love for the people is restored, even though there is

no indication of the people’s love for God. Thus, according to Ackerman, even when the peo-ple’s love for God would be expected from the context it does not occur, and this fits her more general idea about ’hb as a hierarchy-based one-sided concept (i.e., directed from higher to lower social status and not the other way around). I argue that Ackerman’s claim does not contradict either the bidirectional use of ’hb observed here or the observed asymmetric char-acter of ’hb in the Divinity domain. The essential nature and core meaning of ’hb in this do-main, when the lover is human, is determined by the commandment and its required obedience. Regardless of the theological relevance that obedience to the commandment entails, whether or not this commandment is obeyed does not change the essential nature and core meaning of ’hb in the Divinity domain, which remains asymmetric. The conceptual association between ’hb and human love for God, I argue, is indicated by the commandment, which determines the direction of ’hb from the people to God whether it happens (reported in the text) or not. When ’hb is directed from humans to God it is prototypically based on the commandment. Stated differently, the imperative form of ’hb in the context of Divinity and the underlying idea of obedience to the commandment indicate an ancient (Israelite) conception according to which such a dictated human affective attitude toward a deity is not only possible, but is even ideal. As was shown above with (7)–(9), such obedience entails some amount of volition. Bosman (2011) distinguished between the use of ’hb when God is the lover and the beloved is human and the counter occurrences with human lovers, acknowledging the non-hierarchical character of the latter. According to her, the concepts of ‘election’ and ‘commitment’ are the prototypical characteristics of ’hb when the lover is God, while the commanded use of ’hb characterises occurrences with human lovers. She did not, however, attribute the notion of vo-lition to either of the two uses of ’hb in this domain. Vanderhooft (2018: 50), on the other hand, saw the volitionality in God’s love as a metaphoric extension of love in the marriage relation-ship, arguing that “The initiation of the relationship is analogous to the voluntary act of a man expressing love for a woman: it is predicated in a choice, an act of volition.” Vanderhooft does not provide the exact sources of such predication, and volitionality in the domain of marriage may exist to some extent but it is not expressed by the use of ’hb, which implies more sponta-neous affinity and attachment than a conscious choice or preference. Volitionality related to ’hb-events in these contexts is driven by the spontaneous experience. For example, the insist-ence of Jacob on marrying Rachel and twice accepting her father’s condition, in Gen 29, is volitional, but it was driven by his spontaneous affection/attraction/desire toward her. Simi-larly, Elkanah’s special treatment of his beloved wife Hannah in 1Sam 1:5, is a volitional con-duct, but what drives this conduct is his spontaneous affection toward her. The overall pattern is clear: ’hb in the domain of Divinity prototypically entails a choice or preference when God is in the position of the lover. When humans are in this position, it pro-totypically entails volitional obedience if the beloved is God, with an even higher degree of volition if the beloved is a divinely-related thing, such as God’s name, commandments, or laws. Although notions such as choice and volition are strongly associated with humans, in the cultural domain of Divinity volition in human lovers is usually driven by commandment. Fur-thermore, obedience is not associated with God as the lover in any of the occurrences. The volitional aspect of ’hb and its implications will be elaborated in Chapters 5 and 6.


Chapter 4 ׀ 68

4.3.2 ’hb in the cultural domain of Kinship The 23 occurrences of ’hb in the cultural domain of Kinship concern different kin relationships (i.e., subdomains) such as marriage (husband-wife), parenthood (parent-child), siblinghood (brother-sister), and in-law relations (daughter-mother-in-law). ’hb most frequently occurs in the subdomain of marriage (43%), followed by parenthood (35%), siblinghood (17%), and with one occurrence (5%) of in-law relationships. In the first three types of relationships, gender seems to signal the difference in social status between the lover and the beloved. Thus, the use of ’hb in the domain of Kinship is characterised by a gender-based hierarchy, with a majority of men in the role of the lover and a higher frequency of women in the role of the beloved. Similarly, in the unidirectional use of ’hb in parenthood relationships, which clearly entails age-based social hierarchy, the majority of lovers are male, with only one occurrence of a mother in this role (Gen 25:28).

Figure 4.9: Differences in proportion of gender of lover

and beloved in Kinship domain

Figure 4.10: Proportions of love-beloved paires in Kinship domain (HUS = husband, W = wife, FA = father, MO = mother, BRO = brother, SIS = sister, DINLAW = daughter in-law, MINLAW = mother in-law)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91

lover beloved

M F

00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.5

HUS-W

FA-SON

BRO-SIS

MO-SON

DINLAW-MINLAW

Figure 4.9 presents the difference in the proportion of gender between lover and beloved. Fig-ure 4.10 shows the proportions of lover-beloved pair-types. An atypical occurrence of ’hb in relation to the status (and age) differences is the only time it encodes an in-law relationship, in the book of Ruth, where it is used to express Ruth’s at-tachment to her mother in-law Naomi, as observed by Naomi’s female friends, in (10).14 (10) kî kallātēk ’ăšer-’ăhēbatek yəlādattû ’ăšer-hî’ ṭôbâ lāk miššib‘â bānîm

‘For your daughter in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.’ (Ruth 4:15)

Although Ruth and Naomi did not have a mother-daughter relation, the social status of mother-in-law was higher than that of daughter-in-law, and thus Ruth’s love for Naomi is counter-hierarchical and atypical of this kin-relation. Ackerman (2002: 453) suggested that Ruth’s mar-riage and the fact that she gave birth to a son have elevated her social status, giver her a higher status than Naomi who remained a childless widow (see also Bosman 2011: 145). Another, non-contradictory possibility that can be supported by the social structure of ancient Israelite culture (described in Chapter 6) is related to care in the kinship system. The specific relation-ship between Ruth and Naomi, namely a daughter in-law who chooses to follow her mother-in-law back to her homeland and continues to care for her even after remarrying, may play a more significant role than Ruth’s heightened status from a childless widow to a married woman and even of a mother to a son, and hence may justify the use of ’hb in this context. Nevertheless, the affectionate attachment between Naomi and Ruth started long before Ruth began taking care of Naomi and also before she became a mother, as was strongly indicated by the choice of Ruth to follow Naomi. Hence,’hb in this case highlights an affectionate feeling that suits the change of status Ruth underwent, though this feeling was also there before the change. Gender-based hierarchy is especially striking in parent-child relationships, where the use of ’hb is clearly role-based, i.e., unidirectional parental. In this domain, fatherly love of a child appears more frequently than motherly love, and in both cases the beloved is a son. Further-more, in contrast to the general underrepresentation of women with high social status in the biblical texts, in the cultural domain of Kinship women are clearly present in the narratives, especially as wives and mothers, though ’hb is far less often associated with a woman than with a man in this domain. Whereas, for example, Sarah’s long years of infertility in Genesis (16–17) are explicitly expressed, there is no mention of her love for her son Isaac, though Abraham’s love for Isaac is repeatedly emphasised—it is the first occurrence of ’hb in the Hebrew Bible and stands at the core of the binding narrative, considered to be one of the most significant events in Genesis. Another example is Leah and her son Ruben (Gen 29:32), whose birth came after a period of childless marriage and, according to the narrator, caused her to rejoice as she believed it would cause her husband, Jacob, to love her. Again, there is no men-tion of Leah’s love for Ruben or for her other son. The only time that ’hb is used to express

14 Bosman (2011: 145) considered the relationship between Ruth and Naomi as daughter and mother, and, accord-ingly, the occurrence of ’hb in Ruth (4:15) as the only expression of a child’s love to a parent denoted by ’hb (see also Ackerman 2002: 453). As will be shown in Chapter 6, such interpretation is not followed here.



4.3.2 ’hb in the cultural domain of Kinship The 23 occurrences of ’hb in the cultural domain of Kinship concern different kin relationships (i.e., subdomains) such as marriage (husband-wife), parenthood (parent-child), siblinghood (brother-sister), and in-law relations (daughter-mother-in-law). ’hb most frequently occurs in the subdomain of marriage (43%), followed by parenthood (35%), siblinghood (17%), and with one occurrence (5%) of in-law relationships. In the first three types of relationships, gender seems to signal the difference in social status between the lover and the beloved. Thus, the use of ’hb in the domain of Kinship is characterised by a gender-based hierarchy, with a majority of men in the role of the lover and a higher frequency of women in the role of the beloved. Similarly, in the unidirectional use of ’hb in parenthood relationships, which clearly entails age-based social hierarchy, the majority of lovers are male, with only one occurrence of a mother in this role (Gen 25:28).

Figure 4.9: Differences in proportion of gender of lover

and beloved in Kinship domain

Figure 4.10: Proportions of love-beloved paires in Kinship domain (HUS = husband, W = wife, FA = father, MO = mother, BRO = brother, SIS = sister, DINLAW = daughter in-law, MINLAW = mother in-law)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91

lover beloved

M F

00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.5

HUS-W

FA-SON

BRO-SIS

MO-SON

DINLAW-MINLAW

Figure 4.9 presents the difference in the proportion of gender between lover and beloved. Fig-ure 4.10 shows the proportions of lover-beloved pair-types. An atypical occurrence of ’hb in relation to the status (and age) differences is the only time it encodes an in-law relationship, in the book of Ruth, where it is used to express Ruth’s at-tachment to her mother in-law Naomi, as observed by Naomi’s female friends, in (10).14 (10) kî kallātēk ’ăšer-’ăhēbatek yəlādattû ’ăšer-hî’ ṭôbâ lāk miššib‘â bānîm

‘For your daughter in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.’ (Ruth 4:15)

Although Ruth and Naomi did not have a mother-daughter relation, the social status of mother-in-law was higher than that of daughter-in-law, and thus Ruth’s love for Naomi is counter-hierarchical and atypical of this kin-relation. Ackerman (2002: 453) suggested that Ruth’s mar-riage and the fact that she gave birth to a son have elevated her social status, giver her a higher status than Naomi who remained a childless widow (see also Bosman 2011: 145). Another, non-contradictory possibility that can be supported by the social structure of ancient Israelite culture (described in Chapter 6) is related to care in the kinship system. The specific relation-ship between Ruth and Naomi, namely a daughter in-law who chooses to follow her mother-in-law back to her homeland and continues to care for her even after remarrying, may play a more significant role than Ruth’s heightened status from a childless widow to a married woman and even of a mother to a son, and hence may justify the use of ’hb in this context. Nevertheless, the affectionate attachment between Naomi and Ruth started long before Ruth began taking care of Naomi and also before she became a mother, as was strongly indicated by the choice of Ruth to follow Naomi. Hence,’hb in this case highlights an affectionate feeling that suits the change of status Ruth underwent, though this feeling was also there before the change. Gender-based hierarchy is especially striking in parent-child relationships, where the use of ’hb is clearly role-based, i.e., unidirectional parental. In this domain, fatherly love of a child appears more frequently than motherly love, and in both cases the beloved is a son. Further-more, in contrast to the general underrepresentation of women with high social status in the biblical texts, in the cultural domain of Kinship women are clearly present in the narratives, especially as wives and mothers, though ’hb is far less often associated with a woman than with a man in this domain. Whereas, for example, Sarah’s long years of infertility in Genesis (16–17) are explicitly expressed, there is no mention of her love for her son Isaac, though Abraham’s love for Isaac is repeatedly emphasised—it is the first occurrence of ’hb in the Hebrew Bible and stands at the core of the binding narrative, considered to be one of the most significant events in Genesis. Another example is Leah and her son Ruben (Gen 29:32), whose birth came after a period of childless marriage and, according to the narrator, caused her to rejoice as she believed it would cause her husband, Jacob, to love her. Again, there is no men-tion of Leah’s love for Ruben or for her other son. The only time that ’hb is used to express

14 Bosman (2011: 145) considered the relationship between Ruth and Naomi as daughter and mother, and, accord-ingly, the occurrence of ’hb in Ruth (4:15) as the only expression of a child’s love to a parent denoted by ’hb (see also Ackerman 2002: 453). As will be shown in Chapter 6, such interpretation is not followed here.


Chapter 4 ׀ 70

motherly love is in Gen 25:28, with Rebecca’s love for her son Jacob presented in contrast to her husband’s (Isaac) love for her other son Esau, Jacob’s firstborn twin brother. Rebecca’s preference for Jacob over Esau is significant to the development of the narrative, where she plays an important role, and with long-term implications. This may motivate the atypical use of ’hb in this context, as it emphasises the contrast to Isaac’s preference for Esau.15 In a recent study on the kinship system and genealogy in ancient Israel, Chapman (2016) provided evidence for the important role of the mother in the domain of Kinship, as reflected in the narratives and poetry of the Hebrew Bible. She focused her attention on the occurrences of maternal kin expressions that usually do not reach the awareness of scholars, and showed how determinate such expressions are for the genealogy and the kinship system. Chapman terms the mother’s household ‘the house of the mother’, thereby drawing a parallel with the term beit ’ab, (lit. ‘the house of the father’) ‘extended family’, as the examples in (11) illustrate. (11) a. ’ăḥaztîw wəlō ’arpennû ‘ad-šehăbê’tîw ’el-bêt ’immî wə’el-ḥeder hôrātî

‘I held him, and would not let him go until I brought him to the house of my mother, to the room of her who bared me.’ (Song 3:4) b. wattārāṣ hanna‘ărā wattaggēd ləbêt ’immāh kaddəbārîm hā’ēlleh ‘The young woman ran and told the house of her mother [her mother’s

household] these things.’ (Gen 24:28) c. wayəbi’ehā yiṣḥāq hā’ōhĕlâh śārâh ’immô ‘Isaac brought her to the tent of Sarah, his mother.’ (Gen 24:67)

The poetic text in (11a), is the direct speech of a young woman who describes how she took her beloved at night to her house ( her mother’s house), and into her mother’s room. In (11b), young Rebecca returns home (her mother’s house) and tells the household members about her encounter with Isaac’s servant at the well. In (11c), Isaac meets Rebecca, who just arrived with his servant, and brings her to his mother’s tent. His mother was already dead by then, but the verse implies that Isaac was living in her tent (household) because he belonged to that house-hold. His Father, Abraham, had concubines and other sons after Sarah’s death, but there is no indication of any connection between Isaac and them. The intimacy implied by the description of (11a, c) and the authority in (11b) are expressed by the mother’s role in these cases, and they further mark a fundamental essence of the mother-figure in the ancient Israelite kinship system. Chapman’s investigation has relevance for the understanding of ancient Israelite social order, as will be shown in Chapter 6. As for gender-based hierarchy in the domain of Kinship, her study provides support for the claim that this hierarchy is not commensurate with the occur-rences of the individually identified female protagonists in this domain. The use of ’hb in parental relationships implies the volition of the lover to some extent. Isaac’s love for Esau and Rebecca’s love for Jacob may be interpreted as preference because each is emphasised as a contrast to the other. Another example may be found in the way that Jacob loved his son Joseph more than he loved his other sons (Gen 37:3–4), which caused their

15 But see Ackerman’s (2002: 444–45) rejection of this assumption.

jealousy. Jacob’s preference for Joseph is indicated by his deed, namely the making of a gar-ment for Joseph, which evoked the jealousy of his brothers. Both examples indicate the exist-ence of volitionality in relation to ’hb in these occurrences (recall Vanderhooft 2008 in Chapter 3). In effect, volitionality in such cases seems more likely a consequence of the experienced affection, while the experience itself remains spontaneous. A parent’s preference for a child is not necessarily a conscious choice, but may result from a spontaneous affinity that leads to volitional deeds, and which can be interpreted as an indication of choice or preference. This clearly contrasts with the conscious choice of God and the conscious obedience of the people in the domain of Divinity. 4.3.3 ’hb in the cultural domain of Adultery Even though the cultural domain of Adultery is examined independently of Kinship, its relation to marriage is clear, as without marriage adultery does not exist. The occurrences of ’hb in this domain constitute 7% of the total occurrences of the lexeme. ’hb in the domain of Adultery occurs mostly in the prophetic books, where adultery is usually metaphoric and expresses the disloyalty of Israel to God, as in this example from the book of Ezekiel in (12). (12) ləkôl-zōnôt yittənû nēdeh, wə’att nātatt ’et nədānayik ləkôl-mə’ahăbayik wattišḥădî

’ôtām lābô’ ’ēlayik missābîb bətaznûtāyik ‘They give gifts to all whores, but you gave your gifts to all your lovers, and you have bribed them to come to you from all over with your whorings.” (Ezek 16:33)

The speaker in (12) directs his speech toward the town of Jerusalem, the beloved, using the feminine forms of the verbs as ‘town’ is a feminine noun in Hebrew. Jerusalem in this and other texts is a metonymy of the people, who abandoned God for foreign gods, and is used metaphorically as an unfaithful wife. ’hb occurs in the participle form of the pi‘el stem, and means ‘lover’ in adultery or erotic contexts (to be distinguished from the participle form of the qal stem ’oheb ‘one who loves’, which can be used in different contexts to express love/friend-ship/affinity). The participle form in this particular sense occurs in 88% of the cases in the Adultery domain, and the remainder 12% (only two occurrences) are ’hb-verbs in the perfect form, of which one refers to a female and the other to a male. Figure 4.11 presents the clear majority of men in the role of the adultery-lover.



motherly love is in Gen 25:28, with Rebecca’s love for her son Jacob presented in contrast to her husband’s (Isaac) love for her other son Esau, Jacob’s firstborn twin brother. Rebecca’s preference for Jacob over Esau is significant to the development of the narrative, where she plays an important role, and with long-term implications. This may motivate the atypical use of ’hb in this context, as it emphasises the contrast to Isaac’s preference for Esau.15 In a recent study on the kinship system and genealogy in ancient Israel, Chapman (2016) provided evidence for the important role of the mother in the domain of Kinship, as reflected in the narratives and poetry of the Hebrew Bible. She focused her attention on the occurrences of maternal kin expressions that usually do not reach the awareness of scholars, and showed how determinate such expressions are for the genealogy and the kinship system. Chapman terms the mother’s household ‘the house of the mother’, thereby drawing a parallel with the term beit ’ab, (lit. ‘the house of the father’) ‘extended family’, as the examples in (11) illustrate. (11) a. ’ăḥaztîw wəlō ’arpennû ‘ad-šehăbê’tîw ’el-bêt ’immî wə’el-ḥeder hôrātî

‘I held him, and would not let him go until I brought him to the house of my mother, to the room of her who bared me.’ (Song 3:4) b. wattārāṣ hanna‘ărā wattaggēd ləbêt ’immāh kaddəbārîm hā’ēlleh ‘The young woman ran and told the house of her mother [her mother’s

household] these things.’ (Gen 24:28) c. wayəbi’ehā yiṣḥāq hā’ōhĕlâh śārâh ’immô ‘Isaac brought her to the tent of Sarah, his mother.’ (Gen 24:67)

The poetic text in (11a), is the direct speech of a young woman who describes how she took her beloved at night to her house ( her mother’s house), and into her mother’s room. In (11b), young Rebecca returns home (her mother’s house) and tells the household members about her encounter with Isaac’s servant at the well. In (11c), Isaac meets Rebecca, who just arrived with his servant, and brings her to his mother’s tent. His mother was already dead by then, but the verse implies that Isaac was living in her tent (household) because he belonged to that house-hold. His Father, Abraham, had concubines and other sons after Sarah’s death, but there is no indication of any connection between Isaac and them. The intimacy implied by the description of (11a, c) and the authority in (11b) are expressed by the mother’s role in these cases, and they further mark a fundamental essence of the mother-figure in the ancient Israelite kinship system. Chapman’s investigation has relevance for the understanding of ancient Israelite social order, as will be shown in Chapter 6. As for gender-based hierarchy in the domain of Kinship, her study provides support for the claim that this hierarchy is not commensurate with the occur-rences of the individually identified female protagonists in this domain. The use of ’hb in parental relationships implies the volition of the lover to some extent. Isaac’s love for Esau and Rebecca’s love for Jacob may be interpreted as preference because each is emphasised as a contrast to the other. Another example may be found in the way that Jacob loved his son Joseph more than he loved his other sons (Gen 37:3–4), which caused their

15 But see Ackerman’s (2002: 444–45) rejection of this assumption.

jealousy. Jacob’s preference for Joseph is indicated by his deed, namely the making of a gar-ment for Joseph, which evoked the jealousy of his brothers. Both examples indicate the exist-ence of volitionality in relation to ’hb in these occurrences (recall Vanderhooft 2008 in Chapter 3). In effect, volitionality in such cases seems more likely a consequence of the experienced affection, while the experience itself remains spontaneous. A parent’s preference for a child is not necessarily a conscious choice, but may result from a spontaneous affinity that leads to volitional deeds, and which can be interpreted as an indication of choice or preference. This clearly contrasts with the conscious choice of God and the conscious obedience of the people in the domain of Divinity. 4.3.3 ’hb in the cultural domain of Adultery Even though the cultural domain of Adultery is examined independently of Kinship, its relation to marriage is clear, as without marriage adultery does not exist. The occurrences of ’hb in this domain constitute 7% of the total occurrences of the lexeme. ’hb in the domain of Adultery occurs mostly in the prophetic books, where adultery is usually metaphoric and expresses the disloyalty of Israel to God, as in this example from the book of Ezekiel in (12). (12) ləkôl-zōnôt yittənû nēdeh, wə’att nātatt ’et nədānayik ləkôl-mə’ahăbayik wattišḥădî

’ôtām lābô’ ’ēlayik missābîb bətaznûtāyik ‘They give gifts to all whores, but you gave your gifts to all your lovers, and you have bribed them to come to you from all over with your whorings.” (Ezek 16:33)

The speaker in (12) directs his speech toward the town of Jerusalem, the beloved, using the feminine forms of the verbs as ‘town’ is a feminine noun in Hebrew. Jerusalem in this and other texts is a metonymy of the people, who abandoned God for foreign gods, and is used metaphorically as an unfaithful wife. ’hb occurs in the participle form of the pi‘el stem, and means ‘lover’ in adultery or erotic contexts (to be distinguished from the participle form of the qal stem ’oheb ‘one who loves’, which can be used in different contexts to express love/friend-ship/affinity). The participle form in this particular sense occurs in 88% of the cases in the Adultery domain, and the remainder 12% (only two occurrences) are ’hb-verbs in the perfect form, of which one refers to a female and the other to a male. Figure 4.11 presents the clear majority of men in the role of the adultery-lover.


Chapter 4 ׀ 72

Figure 4.11: Differences in proportion of gender of

lover and beloved in Adultery domain It is important to note that an active participle form of ’hb rarely occurs in a female form in BH. While the participle of the qal stem (’ohōb ‘one who loves’) can often have a masculine generic reading (e.g., Prov 17:17, 19), and thus may refer to both women and men, the partici-ple of the pi‘ēl stem (me’ahăb ‘lover’) used in the context of adultery can only refer to men. The stem n’p ‘committing adultery’, on the other hand, occurs in both the masculine and fem-inine forms, as in (13b), and always has a negative connotation. The examples in (13) are the only two occurrences of ’hb that refer to human relations in this domain, both with a married woman who deliberately commits adultery. In both cases, ’hb does not denote the woman’s conduct, but both parties’ mutual sexual activity either initiated by the woman (Prov 7:18) or the man (Hos 3:1). (13) a. ləkâ nirweh dōdîm ‘ad-habbōqer nit‘alləsâ bā’ăhābîm

‘Come, let us satisfy ourselves until morning, delight ourselves with Love’ (Prov 7:18). b. lēk ’ĕhab ’iššâ ’ăhūbat rē‘a ûmənā’āpet ‘Go love a woman, a friend’s beloved, an adulteress’ (Hos 3:1)

In both cases, the negative connotation the woman has is clear whereas the man’s conduct is not explicitly evaluated as negative. In Prov 7, the man is depicted as an innocent victim; in Hos 3, he is instructed by God to seek out an adulteress as an analogy of God’s betrayal by Israel who has turned to other gods. The adulteress, encoded by n’p and not by ’hb, is analogous to the betraying people, and thus she is the one responsible for the misdeed. It is further clear that committing adultery, which implies mutual conduct between two parties, and often nega-tively expressed by the use of n’p, when expressed by ’hb instead stresses a moral difference between men and women so that in these contexts adultery becomes a feminine misdeed. Gen-der-based hierarchy in this domain is not simply based on a majority of male lovers, but also has a connotative ground. The majority of male lovers does not in itself indicate a hierarchy in the favour of men because the concept of adultery (n’p ) in BH already has a negative conno-tation, starting with the forbidding commandment in Exod 20:14. The use of ’hb rather than of n’p , with its negative load to describe the male participant, marks a difference in connotation

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

lover beloved

M F

between the conduct of men and the conduct of women, attributing a negative connotation only to the latter. 4.3.4 ’hb in the cultural domain of Romance Similar to the use of ’hb in the domains of Kinship and Adultery, its use in the domain of Romance is associated with intimate, interpersonal relationships. In this domain, ’hb denotes romantic and erotic attraction and desire. The 31 occurrences of ’hb (12% of the total occur-rences) in this domain are an exception to the overall hierarchical character of ’hb in that they do not indicate a gender-based hierarchy. About 57% of the occurrences in this domain come from Song of Songs, a poetic erotic book of eight chapters. Although men more frequently occur explicitly in the role of the lover than women do in this domain, the five occurrences of an inanimate lover are a personification of a woman’s soul, the speaker, as in (14). (14) ‘al-miškābî ballêlôt biqqaštî ’et še’āhăbâ napšî

‘On my bed at night I sought him whom my soul loves.’ (Song 3:1) Occurrences such as that in (14) indicate female love for a man, and are considered here as such. The inclusion of these five occurrences thus changes the overall proportion of gender of the lover to a majority of women instead of men. In narrative texts, 43% of the occurrences of ’hb in the Romance domain, it is clear that men make up the majority in the role of the lover. An exception to this pattern is the use of ’hb to express Michal’s love for David twice in 1 Samuel (18:20, 28). This exception has been ex-plained in earlier studies as a result of the difference in social statuses between Michal, King Saul’s daughter, and David, a warrior in the service of Saul (see Ackerman 2002; van Wolde 2008; Bosman 2011).16 Accordingly, as the daughter of the king, Michal’s status would have been higher than that of David, therefore it is her love for him that is reported. One occurrence of ’hb refers to women’s love, as experienced by David in (15). (15) niplə’atâ ’ahăbatkā lî mē’ahăbat nāšîm ‘Your love to me surpassed the love of women.’ (2Sam 1:26) This occurrence is embedded within David’s lament for his friend Jonathan, in which he praises Jonathan’s love for him as surpassing women’s love. Although no individual woman is men-tioned in David’s lament, the romantic, erotic character of women’s love is not in doubt. This occurrence of ’hb with a female-subject may receive a different interpretation if instead of ‘women’s love’ it is read as ‘David’s love for women’. However, David’s reputation as a lover of women in the Hebrew Bible should not mislead our reading of this verse; the genitive

16 In this context, both Ackerman (2002) and Bosman (2011) attribute to David the status of a shepherd boy who has just begun to serve King Saul. According to the chronology of the narrative, however, David was already a warrior, or perhaps a chief, in the army of Saul and was also already known and loved by the people.



Figure 4.11: Differences in proportion of gender of

lover and beloved in Adultery domain It is important to note that an active participle form of ’hb rarely occurs in a female form in BH. While the participle of the qal stem (’ohōb ‘one who loves’) can often have a masculine generic reading (e.g., Prov 17:17, 19), and thus may refer to both women and men, the partici-ple of the pi‘ēl stem (me’ahăb ‘lover’) used in the context of adultery can only refer to men. The stem n’p ‘committing adultery’, on the other hand, occurs in both the masculine and fem-inine forms, as in (13b), and always has a negative connotation. The examples in (13) are the only two occurrences of ’hb that refer to human relations in this domain, both with a married woman who deliberately commits adultery. In both cases, ’hb does not denote the woman’s conduct, but both parties’ mutual sexual activity either initiated by the woman (Prov 7:18) or the man (Hos 3:1). (13) a. ləkâ nirweh dōdîm ‘ad-habbōqer nit‘alləsâ bā’ăhābîm

‘Come, let us satisfy ourselves until morning, delight ourselves with Love’ (Prov 7:18). b. lēk ’ĕhab ’iššâ ’ăhūbat rē‘a ûmənā’āpet ‘Go love a woman, a friend’s beloved, an adulteress’ (Hos 3:1)

In both cases, the negative connotation the woman has is clear whereas the man’s conduct is not explicitly evaluated as negative. In Prov 7, the man is depicted as an innocent victim; in Hos 3, he is instructed by God to seek out an adulteress as an analogy of God’s betrayal by Israel who has turned to other gods. The adulteress, encoded by n’p and not by ’hb, is analogous to the betraying people, and thus she is the one responsible for the misdeed. It is further clear that committing adultery, which implies mutual conduct between two parties, and often nega-tively expressed by the use of n’p, when expressed by ’hb instead stresses a moral difference between men and women so that in these contexts adultery becomes a feminine misdeed. Gen-der-based hierarchy in this domain is not simply based on a majority of male lovers, but also has a connotative ground. The majority of male lovers does not in itself indicate a hierarchy in the favour of men because the concept of adultery (n’p ) in BH already has a negative conno-tation, starting with the forbidding commandment in Exod 20:14. The use of ’hb rather than of n’p , with its negative load to describe the male participant, marks a difference in connotation

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

lover beloved

M F

between the conduct of men and the conduct of women, attributing a negative connotation only to the latter. 4.3.4 ’hb in the cultural domain of Romance Similar to the use of ’hb in the domains of Kinship and Adultery, its use in the domain of Romance is associated with intimate, interpersonal relationships. In this domain, ’hb denotes romantic and erotic attraction and desire. The 31 occurrences of ’hb (12% of the total occur-rences) in this domain are an exception to the overall hierarchical character of ’hb in that they do not indicate a gender-based hierarchy. About 57% of the occurrences in this domain come from Song of Songs, a poetic erotic book of eight chapters. Although men more frequently occur explicitly in the role of the lover than women do in this domain, the five occurrences of an inanimate lover are a personification of a woman’s soul, the speaker, as in (14). (14) ‘al-miškābî ballêlôt biqqaštî ’et še’āhăbâ napšî

‘On my bed at night I sought him whom my soul loves.’ (Song 3:1) Occurrences such as that in (14) indicate female love for a man, and are considered here as such. The inclusion of these five occurrences thus changes the overall proportion of gender of the lover to a majority of women instead of men. In narrative texts, 43% of the occurrences of ’hb in the Romance domain, it is clear that men make up the majority in the role of the lover. An exception to this pattern is the use of ’hb to express Michal’s love for David twice in 1 Samuel (18:20, 28). This exception has been ex-plained in earlier studies as a result of the difference in social statuses between Michal, King Saul’s daughter, and David, a warrior in the service of Saul (see Ackerman 2002; van Wolde 2008; Bosman 2011).16 Accordingly, as the daughter of the king, Michal’s status would have been higher than that of David, therefore it is her love for him that is reported. One occurrence of ’hb refers to women’s love, as experienced by David in (15). (15) niplə’atâ ’ahăbatkā lî mē’ahăbat nāšîm ‘Your love to me surpassed the love of women.’ (2Sam 1:26) This occurrence is embedded within David’s lament for his friend Jonathan, in which he praises Jonathan’s love for him as surpassing women’s love. Although no individual woman is men-tioned in David’s lament, the romantic, erotic character of women’s love is not in doubt. This occurrence of ’hb with a female-subject may receive a different interpretation if instead of ‘women’s love’ it is read as ‘David’s love for women’. However, David’s reputation as a lover of women in the Hebrew Bible should not mislead our reading of this verse; the genitive

16 In this context, both Ackerman (2002) and Bosman (2011) attribute to David the status of a shepherd boy who has just begun to serve King Saul. According to the chronology of the narrative, however, David was already a warrior, or perhaps a chief, in the army of Saul and was also already known and loved by the people.


Chapter 4 ׀ 74

inflection of the noun, ’ahăbat ‘love of/for’, indeed encodes the subject’s love, but the subject of (15) is not David himself but Jonathan’s love for David, which is compared with women’s love for him (from David’s perspective). This comparison is expressed by niplə’atâ ‘surpassed’ that stresses David’s experience, which he compares with his own associated experience, i.e., women’s love. He concludes that the experience of Jonathan’s love surpasses that of women. In other words, David’s experience as the object of love (the beloved) by both Jonathan and women is what is being compared in his lament, and Jonathan’s love is the subject of the sen-tence. Furthermore, as will be shown in the following section, ’hb is never used to express David’s feeling or attitude toward Jonathan, but only to express Jonathan’s love for David. Figure 4.12 shows the proportion of the two gender categories, with inanimate lovers (i.e., woman’s soul) included under female lovers.

Figure 4.12: Differences in proportion of

gender/animacy of lover and beloved in Romance

The relatively higher frequency of women in the role of lover, the counter-hierarchical oc-currence of ʾhb in the narrative of Michal, and the occurrence of women’s love as an ordinary, nonexceptional phenomenon in David’s lament, signal the uniqueness of Romance among the other cultural domains in which a general social hierarchy occurs. The natural association be-tween the lexeme and women as its possible subjects is clear. This supports the proposition in regard to non-inherent element of hierarchy in the meaning of ’hb in 4.1. The relation between volition and romantic or erotic experience in the use of ’hb is not overt. Although ’hb-events in the domain of Romance often trigger and lead to action, the experience ’hb denotes is not necessarily volitional. Volitionality may nevertheless be implicitly entailed by this experience. The relation between romantic love and volition is not odd, as the English phrase ‘I want you’ suggests. Batic (2011: 148-9) showed how the verb so, meaning ‘want’ in the Hausa language, is used alternately to express love and desire. He argued that this indicates the existence of a volitional component in love-related concepts, a phenomenon that is common in African languages. 4.3.5 ’hb in the cultural domains of Social Relations and Politics The occurrences of ’hb in the two related cultural domains of Social Relations and Politics are less frequent than in the interpersonal domains of Romance and Kinship, with only 22 times

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.5

0.52

0.54

lover belovedM F

(9%) in Social Relations and 17 (6%) in Politics. In both of these domains, ’hb encodes (hier-archical) social relationships with differing degrees of intimacy or affection, such as the differ-ent types of friendships or attachment. When social hierarchy in these domains occurs, it is not necessarily indicated by differences in gender, as in the domain of Kinship, Romance, and Adultery, but by specific social statuses and functions that participants in ’hb-events have. An example from the domain of Social Relations is the friendship between David and Jonathan (1 Sam 18, 20), in which ’hb is always unidirectional, i.e., Jonathan is the subject and David the object. This unidirectionality does not imply political bond, as some scholars have suggested (see, for example, Moran 1963 and Ackerman 2002); rather, it reflects the difference in social status between the two, as Jonathan was the son of a king (Saul) and David was the king’s arm-bearer and later a chief in his army. In the previous section, it was shown that David’s experi-ence of Jonathan’s love was praised by him—and the texts in which their relationship occurs by no means imply otherwise—but the use of ’hb is still hierarchical. Although the two have made a political covenant (1 Sam 23:18), the friendship has emerged out of Jonathan’s affec-tion/affinity/love for David. David’s affection for Jonathan is likewise clearly expressed in his lament, addressing Jonathan with ‘I am distressed about you, my brother Jonathan, very pleas-ant have you been to me’ (2 Sam 1:26a). The hierarchical use of ’hb in this context is indicated not only by the difference in status between David and Jonathan, but in that this difference also influences the nature of their friendship. It is Jonathan who defends David from his own father and helps David to escape Saul’s anger and impedes his intention to kill David. David, on the other hand, does not do anything for Jonathan except for accepting the covenant with him. Jonathan’s higher status enables him to act in this way, but nothing in the text regardless of his feelings toward David indicates his decision to go against his father. It is David who evokes affection or love in Jonathan, and being the one with the higher status between the two, Jona-than is the one to which this love can be attributed. It is, therefore, clear that not a political alliance but a friendship based on affection/love/affinity drives the relationship between the two. An example from the domain of Politics is the political alliance between Hiram, king of Tyre, and King David of Israel (1 Kgs 5:15). Hiram appears here in the role of the lover and ’hb denotes a hierarchical relationship. Although both were kings and allies, Hiram’s kingdom, Tyre, was a rich and important city, while Israel was only a small province. The participle ’ōheb ‘friend’ (literally ‘lover’) and the whole sentence express a longitudinal alliance between Hiram and David, which justifies the former’s generosity toward King Solomon, David’s son. In both domains, the majority of the occurrences of ’hb implies a spontaneous attachment/af-finity in the lover, regardless of social status, as in the example from Politics in (16), where the love of King Saul’s servants for David is expressed. (16) wayəṣaw šā’ûl ’et-‘ăbādāw dabbərû ’el-dāwid ballāṭ lē’mōr, hinnēh ḥāpēṣ bəkā ham-

melek wəkŏl-‘ăbādāyw ’ăhēbûkā ‘Saul commanded his servants: “talk to David secretly and say, the king wants you and all his servants love you”.’ (1 Sam 18:22)

Additionally, in one occurrence in Social Relations, (17a) and two in Politics, (17b), ’hb is embedded in commandments, implying the existence of some amount of volition, as was



inflection of the noun, ’ahăbat ‘love of/for’, indeed encodes the subject’s love, but the subject of (15) is not David himself but Jonathan’s love for David, which is compared with women’s love for him (from David’s perspective). This comparison is expressed by niplə’atâ ‘surpassed’ that stresses David’s experience, which he compares with his own associated experience, i.e., women’s love. He concludes that the experience of Jonathan’s love surpasses that of women. In other words, David’s experience as the object of love (the beloved) by both Jonathan and women is what is being compared in his lament, and Jonathan’s love is the subject of the sen-tence. Furthermore, as will be shown in the following section, ’hb is never used to express David’s feeling or attitude toward Jonathan, but only to express Jonathan’s love for David. Figure 4.12 shows the proportion of the two gender categories, with inanimate lovers (i.e., woman’s soul) included under female lovers.

Figure 4.12: Differences in proportion of

gender/animacy of lover and beloved in Romance

The relatively higher frequency of women in the role of lover, the counter-hierarchical oc-currence of ʾhb in the narrative of Michal, and the occurrence of women’s love as an ordinary, nonexceptional phenomenon in David’s lament, signal the uniqueness of Romance among the other cultural domains in which a general social hierarchy occurs. The natural association be-tween the lexeme and women as its possible subjects is clear. This supports the proposition in regard to non-inherent element of hierarchy in the meaning of ’hb in 4.1. The relation between volition and romantic or erotic experience in the use of ’hb is not overt. Although ’hb-events in the domain of Romance often trigger and lead to action, the experience ’hb denotes is not necessarily volitional. Volitionality may nevertheless be implicitly entailed by this experience. The relation between romantic love and volition is not odd, as the English phrase ‘I want you’ suggests. Batic (2011: 148-9) showed how the verb so, meaning ‘want’ in the Hausa language, is used alternately to express love and desire. He argued that this indicates the existence of a volitional component in love-related concepts, a phenomenon that is common in African languages. 4.3.5 ’hb in the cultural domains of Social Relations and Politics The occurrences of ’hb in the two related cultural domains of Social Relations and Politics are less frequent than in the interpersonal domains of Romance and Kinship, with only 22 times

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.5

0.52

0.54

lover belovedM F

(9%) in Social Relations and 17 (6%) in Politics. In both of these domains, ’hb encodes (hier-archical) social relationships with differing degrees of intimacy or affection, such as the differ-ent types of friendships or attachment. When social hierarchy in these domains occurs, it is not necessarily indicated by differences in gender, as in the domain of Kinship, Romance, and Adultery, but by specific social statuses and functions that participants in ’hb-events have. An example from the domain of Social Relations is the friendship between David and Jonathan (1 Sam 18, 20), in which ’hb is always unidirectional, i.e., Jonathan is the subject and David the object. This unidirectionality does not imply political bond, as some scholars have suggested (see, for example, Moran 1963 and Ackerman 2002); rather, it reflects the difference in social status between the two, as Jonathan was the son of a king (Saul) and David was the king’s arm-bearer and later a chief in his army. In the previous section, it was shown that David’s experi-ence of Jonathan’s love was praised by him—and the texts in which their relationship occurs by no means imply otherwise—but the use of ’hb is still hierarchical. Although the two have made a political covenant (1 Sam 23:18), the friendship has emerged out of Jonathan’s affec-tion/affinity/love for David. David’s affection for Jonathan is likewise clearly expressed in his lament, addressing Jonathan with ‘I am distressed about you, my brother Jonathan, very pleas-ant have you been to me’ (2 Sam 1:26a). The hierarchical use of ’hb in this context is indicated not only by the difference in status between David and Jonathan, but in that this difference also influences the nature of their friendship. It is Jonathan who defends David from his own father and helps David to escape Saul’s anger and impedes his intention to kill David. David, on the other hand, does not do anything for Jonathan except for accepting the covenant with him. Jonathan’s higher status enables him to act in this way, but nothing in the text regardless of his feelings toward David indicates his decision to go against his father. It is David who evokes affection or love in Jonathan, and being the one with the higher status between the two, Jona-than is the one to which this love can be attributed. It is, therefore, clear that not a political alliance but a friendship based on affection/love/affinity drives the relationship between the two. An example from the domain of Politics is the political alliance between Hiram, king of Tyre, and King David of Israel (1 Kgs 5:15). Hiram appears here in the role of the lover and ’hb denotes a hierarchical relationship. Although both were kings and allies, Hiram’s kingdom, Tyre, was a rich and important city, while Israel was only a small province. The participle ’ōheb ‘friend’ (literally ‘lover’) and the whole sentence express a longitudinal alliance between Hiram and David, which justifies the former’s generosity toward King Solomon, David’s son. In both domains, the majority of the occurrences of ’hb implies a spontaneous attachment/af-finity in the lover, regardless of social status, as in the example from Politics in (16), where the love of King Saul’s servants for David is expressed. (16) wayəṣaw šā’ûl ’et-‘ăbādāw dabbərû ’el-dāwid ballāṭ lē’mōr, hinnēh ḥāpēṣ bəkā ham-

melek wəkŏl-‘ăbādāyw ’ăhēbûkā ‘Saul commanded his servants: “talk to David secretly and say, the king wants you and all his servants love you”.’ (1 Sam 18:22)

Additionally, in one occurrence in Social Relations, (17a) and two in Politics, (17b), ’hb is embedded in commandments, implying the existence of some amount of volition, as was


Chapter 4 ׀ 76

argued for the commanded used of ’hb in the domain of Divinity in 4.2.2. (17) a. wə’āhabtā lərē‘ăkā kāmôkā ‘You shall love your fellow man as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18)

b. wa’ăhabtem ’et-haggēr, kî-gerim hĕyîtem bə’ereṣ miṣrāyim ‘You shall love the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.’ (Deut 10:19)

These two examples differ from each other in the social status of the lover and the beloved. In (17a), the social status of the lover is equal to that of the beloved, as the commandment con-cerns members of the same ethnic group without any specification of social class differences. In (17b), on the other hand, the commandment is directed to the people of Israel (i.e., the lover), with people of foreign minorities in the role of the beloved. The commandment here implies the superiority of the lover as the ethnic majority, and hence, in this case social hierarchy is based on ethnicity. These imperative occurrences of ’hb represent important themes in the bib-lical texts. Both are parts of legislation texts in which the first commandments of Yhwh are further elaborated into a complete sociocultural code. It will be shown in Chapter 6 how these imperative occurrences are relevant to the broader use of the lexeme in BH. In both Social Relations and Politics, a general male-dominance is clearly indicated by the near complete absence of women in the roles of either lover or beloved. The only occurrence of a female-beloved is found in the domain of Politics (Exod 21:5), referring to the wife of a slave as a representative figure in a particular legal context. A slave’s love for his master, his own wife, and his sons, the text says, enables him to stay in slavery at his master’s house even after the prescribed period of six years. This applies to situations in which the wife of the slave was given to him by his master, and not in cases where he came to his master’s house with a wife. Thus, if he were to leave his master’s house they would have to stay behind without him. The clear male-dominance in both Social Relations and Politics does not indicate a gender-based hierarchy; rather, it reflects the general male-dominance of the biblical texts. Figure 4.13 presents the proportion of gender in the roles of lover and beloved in the two domains. As the chart on the left side of Figure 4.13 shows, no women occur in the role of both lover and beloved in the domain of Social Relations. However, the masculine generic form (MG) occurs often in these roles (in both domains), and thus also entails the involvement of women in ’hb-events in both.

Figure 4.13 Differences in proportion of gender of lover and beloved

in Social Relations (left) and Politics The use of ’hb in both domains is not necessarily based on social hierarchy, and may be actually involved in counter-hierarchical and non-hierarchical (i.e., equal) relations. In the domain of Social Relations, non-hierarchical occurrences cover almost 70% of all interpersonal ’hb-events encoding relationships between friends or humans without the indication of the partici-pants’ social status. In the rest of the events, the lover always has a higher social status than the beloved (i.e. hierarchical). Interestingly, we find no examples of counter-hierarchical events, i.e., those where the lover has a lower social status than the beloved. This constitutes a clear difference between the domain of Social Relations and that of Politics, as will be shown below. Figure 4.14 presents the proportion of hierarchical and non-hierarchical ’hb-events in the domain of Social Relations.

Figure 4.14: Differences in proportion of hierarchy degrees

in Social Relations domain (HIER = hierarchial; N-HIER = non-hierarchical) In the domain of Politics, ’hb-events with equal status of lover and beloved (i.e. non-hierarchical) are less frequent, constituting 7%. When a difference in status does occur, individuals with a higher social status are more often the lovers than the beloved. Figure 4.15 presents the proportions of hierarchical and non-hierarchical ’hb-events in this domain

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

lover beloved

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

lover beloved

M F

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

HIER N-HIER



argued for the commanded used of ’hb in the domain of Divinity in 4.2.2. (17) a. wə’āhabtā lərē‘ăkā kāmôkā ‘You shall love your fellow man as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18)

b. wa’ăhabtem ’et-haggēr, kî-gerim hĕyîtem bə’ereṣ miṣrāyim ‘You shall love the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.’ (Deut 10:19)

These two examples differ from each other in the social status of the lover and the beloved. In (17a), the social status of the lover is equal to that of the beloved, as the commandment con-cerns members of the same ethnic group without any specification of social class differences. In (17b), on the other hand, the commandment is directed to the people of Israel (i.e., the lover), with people of foreign minorities in the role of the beloved. The commandment here implies the superiority of the lover as the ethnic majority, and hence, in this case social hierarchy is based on ethnicity. These imperative occurrences of ’hb represent important themes in the bib-lical texts. Both are parts of legislation texts in which the first commandments of Yhwh are further elaborated into a complete sociocultural code. It will be shown in Chapter 6 how these imperative occurrences are relevant to the broader use of the lexeme in BH. In both Social Relations and Politics, a general male-dominance is clearly indicated by the near complete absence of women in the roles of either lover or beloved. The only occurrence of a female-beloved is found in the domain of Politics (Exod 21:5), referring to the wife of a slave as a representative figure in a particular legal context. A slave’s love for his master, his own wife, and his sons, the text says, enables him to stay in slavery at his master’s house even after the prescribed period of six years. This applies to situations in which the wife of the slave was given to him by his master, and not in cases where he came to his master’s house with a wife. Thus, if he were to leave his master’s house they would have to stay behind without him. The clear male-dominance in both Social Relations and Politics does not indicate a gender-based hierarchy; rather, it reflects the general male-dominance of the biblical texts. Figure 4.13 presents the proportion of gender in the roles of lover and beloved in the two domains. As the chart on the left side of Figure 4.13 shows, no women occur in the role of both lover and beloved in the domain of Social Relations. However, the masculine generic form (MG) occurs often in these roles (in both domains), and thus also entails the involvement of women in ’hb-events in both.

Figure 4.13 Differences in proportion of gender of lover and beloved

in Social Relations (left) and Politics The use of ’hb in both domains is not necessarily based on social hierarchy, and may be actually involved in counter-hierarchical and non-hierarchical (i.e., equal) relations. In the domain of Social Relations, non-hierarchical occurrences cover almost 70% of all interpersonal ’hb-events encoding relationships between friends or humans without the indication of the partici-pants’ social status. In the rest of the events, the lover always has a higher social status than the beloved (i.e. hierarchical). Interestingly, we find no examples of counter-hierarchical events, i.e., those where the lover has a lower social status than the beloved. This constitutes a clear difference between the domain of Social Relations and that of Politics, as will be shown below. Figure 4.14 presents the proportion of hierarchical and non-hierarchical ’hb-events in the domain of Social Relations.

Figure 4.14: Differences in proportion of hierarchy degrees

in Social Relations domain (HIER = hierarchial; N-HIER = non-hierarchical) In the domain of Politics, ’hb-events with equal status of lover and beloved (i.e. non-hierarchical) are less frequent, constituting 7%. When a difference in status does occur, individuals with a higher social status are more often the lovers than the beloved. Figure 4.15 presents the proportions of hierarchical and non-hierarchical ’hb-events in this domain

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

lover beloved

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

lover beloved

M F

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

HIER N-HIER


Chapter 4 ׀ 78

Figure 4.15: Differences in proportion of hierarchy degrees in Politics domain

(HIER = hierarchial; C-HIER = counter-hierarchical; N-HIER = non-hierarchical) With a relatively lower percentage of non-hierarchical occurrences, the domain of Politics may thus indicate a somewhat stronger general social hierarchy. Although the proportion of counter-hierarchical occurrences in Politics may be lower than that of the hierarchical ones, and no counter-hierarchical events occur in Social Relations, it is nevertheless interesting that both counter- and non-hierarchical ’hb-events do occur in these domains, since these occurrences deviate from the general hierarchical pattern in the use of ’hb, and thereby contribute to a more complex and complete social profile of the lexeme. As will be further discussed in Chapter 6, such occurrences are well integrated into the general social use of ’hb. 4.3.6 ʾhb in the cultural domains of Conduct/Activity, Inanimate Concrete, and Inanimate Abstract The cultural domains of Conduct & Activities, Inanimate Concrete, and Inanimate Abstract are charachterised by different types of inanimate beloved. The occurrences of ʾhb in the three domains together cover 23% of the total occurrences. In these domains ʾhb encodes affinity with or attraction to different types of conduct or activity, such as sleep and bribing, and dif-ferent types of inanimate things such as language, justice, money, and foods. A human in the role of the beloved occurs one time in Inanimate Abstract, when the lover is the personified inanimate wisdom, here in (18). (18) ’ănî ’ōhăbayh ’ēhāb ‘I love those who love me.’ (Prov 8:17). The majority of lovers in all three domains have the gender identity of the masculine generic (MG), which may refer to the people of Israel and human beings in general, but also to generic categories such as ‘wicked’, ‘poor’, or ‘foreign’. The occurrences of ’hb in the three domains mostly concern wisdom texts and prophetic texts, some psalms, and very few narrative texts.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

HIER C-HIER N-HIER

This may explain the relative few number of lovers with a social identity, such as ‘king’, ‘fa-ther’, or ‘son’. Wisdom texts and prophetic texts usually convey general contents in the forms of rebuke, condemnation, prescriptions, or maxims concerning sociocultural and religious or cultic topics, and therefore are usually directed to the people as a group and not to individuals. One of the exceptions to the dominant generic lover is an occurrence of a whore-metaphor in the domain of Conduct & Activities, in (19). The metaphor is attributed to Jerusalem as a symbol (metonymy) of the people of Judah, whose sinful behavior is rebuked by the prophet Isaiah. (19) wə’aḥar haddelet wəhamməzūzâ śamt zikrônēk kî mē’ittî gillît, watta‘ălî hirḥabt

miškābēk wattikrat-lak mēhem ’āhabt miškābām ‘Behind the door and the doorpost you have set up your memory, for being exiled from me, you have gone up and widened your bed, you have made a covenant with them whose bed you have loved.’ (Is 57:8)

Another exception in the domain of Conduct & Activities is the occurrence of heifer as a metaphor for the people of Ephraim, one of the tribes of Israel, representing the northern kingdom, in (20). This occurrence is annotated as animate lover (ANIM in Figure 4.15). (20) wə’eprayim ‘eglâ məlummādâ ’ōhabtî lādûš wa’ănî ‘ābartî ‘al-ṭûb ṣawwā’rāh ‘And Ephraim, a trained heifer, loved to thresh, and I passed over upon the goodness

of her neck’. (Hos 10:11)17 Hierarchy based on social status is not straightforwardly indicated in these domains, since the beloved is almost entirely inanimate. Lovers, with an individual identity (i.e. other than the generic type), may have a relative high social status (e.g. king, father), but these oc-currences are far less frequent in all three domains. Also gender-based hierarchy is not indi-cated in these domains, as women, except for the one metaphorical use mentioned above, do not occur as lovers. Figures 4.16-4.18 present the proportions of gender and animacy in the roles of lover and beloved.

17 According to Stuart (1987), threshing is seen as a pleasant rather than forced work, during which the threshing animal is fed while working. This metaphor stands for Israel in the early years when God called it, chose it from all the peoples (and hence took care of it [RV]). ‘Good neck’ in this context refers to a strong neck that can pull the thresher, which was tied to it.



Figure 4.15: Differences in proportion of hierarchy degrees in Politics domain

(HIER = hierarchial; C-HIER = counter-hierarchical; N-HIER = non-hierarchical) With a relatively lower percentage of non-hierarchical occurrences, the domain of Politics may thus indicate a somewhat stronger general social hierarchy. Although the proportion of counter-hierarchical occurrences in Politics may be lower than that of the hierarchical ones, and no counter-hierarchical events occur in Social Relations, it is nevertheless interesting that both counter- and non-hierarchical ’hb-events do occur in these domains, since these occurrences deviate from the general hierarchical pattern in the use of ’hb, and thereby contribute to a more complex and complete social profile of the lexeme. As will be further discussed in Chapter 6, such occurrences are well integrated into the general social use of ’hb. 4.3.6 ʾhb in the cultural domains of Conduct/Activity, Inanimate Concrete, and Inanimate Abstract The cultural domains of Conduct & Activities, Inanimate Concrete, and Inanimate Abstract are charachterised by different types of inanimate beloved. The occurrences of ʾhb in the three domains together cover 23% of the total occurrences. In these domains ʾhb encodes affinity with or attraction to different types of conduct or activity, such as sleep and bribing, and dif-ferent types of inanimate things such as language, justice, money, and foods. A human in the role of the beloved occurs one time in Inanimate Abstract, when the lover is the personified inanimate wisdom, here in (18). (18) ’ănî ’ōhăbayh ’ēhāb ‘I love those who love me.’ (Prov 8:17). The majority of lovers in all three domains have the gender identity of the masculine generic (MG), which may refer to the people of Israel and human beings in general, but also to generic categories such as ‘wicked’, ‘poor’, or ‘foreign’. The occurrences of ’hb in the three domains mostly concern wisdom texts and prophetic texts, some psalms, and very few narrative texts.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

HIER C-HIER N-HIER

This may explain the relative few number of lovers with a social identity, such as ‘king’, ‘fa-ther’, or ‘son’. Wisdom texts and prophetic texts usually convey general contents in the forms of rebuke, condemnation, prescriptions, or maxims concerning sociocultural and religious or cultic topics, and therefore are usually directed to the people as a group and not to individuals. One of the exceptions to the dominant generic lover is an occurrence of a whore-metaphor in the domain of Conduct & Activities, in (19). The metaphor is attributed to Jerusalem as a symbol (metonymy) of the people of Judah, whose sinful behavior is rebuked by the prophet Isaiah. (19) wə’aḥar haddelet wəhamməzūzâ śamt zikrônēk kî mē’ittî gillît, watta‘ălî hirḥabt

miškābēk wattikrat-lak mēhem ’āhabt miškābām ‘Behind the door and the doorpost you have set up your memory, for being exiled from me, you have gone up and widened your bed, you have made a covenant with them whose bed you have loved.’ (Is 57:8)

Another exception in the domain of Conduct & Activities is the occurrence of heifer as a metaphor for the people of Ephraim, one of the tribes of Israel, representing the northern kingdom, in (20). This occurrence is annotated as animate lover (ANIM in Figure 4.15). (20) wə’eprayim ‘eglâ məlummādâ ’ōhabtî lādûš wa’ănî ‘ābartî ‘al-ṭûb ṣawwā’rāh ‘And Ephraim, a trained heifer, loved to thresh, and I passed over upon the goodness

of her neck’. (Hos 10:11)17 Hierarchy based on social status is not straightforwardly indicated in these domains, since the beloved is almost entirely inanimate. Lovers, with an individual identity (i.e. other than the generic type), may have a relative high social status (e.g. king, father), but these oc-currences are far less frequent in all three domains. Also gender-based hierarchy is not indi-cated in these domains, as women, except for the one metaphorical use mentioned above, do not occur as lovers. Figures 4.16-4.18 present the proportions of gender and animacy in the roles of lover and beloved.

17 According to Stuart (1987), threshing is seen as a pleasant rather than forced work, during which the threshing animal is fed while working. This metaphor stands for Israel in the early years when God called it, chose it from all the peoples (and hence took care of it [RV]). ‘Good neck’ in this context refers to a strong neck that can pull the thresher, which was tied to it.


Chapter 4 ׀ 80

Figure 4.16: Proportions gender/animacy of lover

and beloved in Conduct & Activity (see (20) above)

Figure 4.17: Proportions gender/animacy Figure 4.18: Proportions gender/animacy of lover and beloved in of lover and beloved in Inanimate Abstract Inanimate Concrete A general male-dominance is thus a characteristic social pattern in these domains, but the significance of the use of ʾhb here lies in the evaluative role it plays in wisdom texts and in prophetic texts, which are the majority in these domains. In particular, the relation between the identity of the lover (i.e. generic or individual), the nature of the beloved (i.e. what is being loved), and the linguistic form of ’hb (e.g. negation, commandment), indicate positive or negative evaluation with a social relevance, as will be elaborated in Chapter 6. 4.4 The relevance of volition to the conceptualisation of ’hb Volitionality is not only relevant to the social character of ’hb (i.e., its hierarchical use), but is particularly interesting in relation to a common approach to emotion in (evolutionary) psycho-logical and cognitive-linguistic literature according to which the experience of emotion is seen as a physiological, spontaneous (uncontrolled) reaction to stimuli. Well known examples from evolutionary psychology are Ekman et al.’s (1972) and Ekman’s (1992) studies on the facial expression of emotion, such as raised cheek muscles in a state of happiness (e.g., a smile) or raised eyebrows in a state of surprise. According to this framework, emotion and its (facial)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

M F MG INAN ANIM

lover beloved

00.20.40.6

0.81

1.2

M MG INAN

lover beloved

00.20.40.60.81

1.2

MG M INAN

lover beloved

expression are essential for survival and have an evolutionary function (see Plutchik 1980 and also Barrett 2006 on emotion as caused states). In the framework of cognitive-linguistics, Kövecses’ (1986, 2000, 2005) work, for example, clearly indicated this approach in regard to the metaphor and metonymy of emotion, which often reflect a physical reaction to an external stimulus, for example an increase in body heat in a state of anger caused by another person or event (see also Lakoff 1987 and Wierzbicka 1999). This general approach is also indicated in grammatical theory regarding emotive and mental verbs (also called psych verbs), according to which the grammatical subject of an emotion verb is usually the one undergoing the experi-ence, and hence not necessarily volitional and non-agentive, but bearing the semantic role of ‘experiencer’. 18 Volition is seen as a prototypical feature of agentivity (see, for example, Dowty 1991; Langacker 1991; Givón 2001; Næss 2007), or at least as one of its main compo-nents (Jackendoff 1990). Consequently, emotion verbs (unless causative as in ‘irritate’ or ‘frighten’) are often not strongly associated with volitionality in the same way that other verb types are, as, for example, devastation (e.g., ‘break’, ‘kill’) and contact verbs (e.g., ‘touch’, ‘hit’). Returning to the domain of Divinity, the use of ’hb in this cultural domain partially deviates from this general pattern and shows that this emotion in BH can be associated with different degrees of volitionality, at least in some contexts. Regardless of Divinity domain, BH is not unique in this respect, as association between love and volition occurs in other languages as well. Love is often expressed by want in informal (spoken) English and love songs (e.g., Bob Dylan 1966, I want you; Elvis Costello 1986 I want you). Batic (2011) noted that volition is a common component of love/desire in African languages, as indicated, for example, by the use of the verb so ‘want’ in Hausa oral literature (tatsunyoyi) and social media to express love/de-sire in the domain of Romance. Moreover, Batic (2011) stated that volition is one of the two main components that constitute love in Hausa, with emotion being the other one. Another example of volition presented by Batic (2011) was taken from Bole, a Chadic language, where the verb ndol ‘want’ is used to express romantic love/desire. Tramutoli (2015) showed that the Swahili root pend denotes either ‘like’, ‘love’, or ‘will’, and in religious contexts volition and love are thus associated through the use of verbs derived from this root (Tramutoli 2015: 79, 85). These associations between love and volition indeed suggest that volition is an inherent com-ponent in these languages, as Batic (2017) claimed for Hausa. Such a claim cannot be straight-forwardly made for ’hb in BH, and especially not for ’hb-events with human lovers, which usually denote a spontaneous experience with or without a given stimulus. In contrast, voli-tionality in association with ’hb seems to play a role in the socialness of this lexeme. And yet, the existence of association between volitionality and love in the African languages mentioned above suggests a possible conceptual link between the two also in BH, and which may explain the attribution of volitionality to the use of ’hb in the first place. Regardless of emotions, Næss (2007) showed that volition does not necessarily contradict the undergoing of experience or action, as indicated by cross-linguistic variation in the 18 As Croft (1991) noted, causative emotive constructions such as “X pleases/irritates Y” may have a volitional agent (i.e., the semantic role of the subject X) and a non-volitional experiencer (Y); see also Malchukov 2005. The attention in the present thesis is mainly directed toward the volition of an experiencer, rather than the causer of emotion, which in most of the cases is also the subject.



Figure 4.16: Proportions gender/animacy of lover

and beloved in Conduct & Activity (see (20) above)

Figure 4.17: Proportions gender/animacy Figure 4.18: Proportions gender/animacy of lover and beloved in of lover and beloved in Inanimate Abstract Inanimate Concrete A general male-dominance is thus a characteristic social pattern in these domains, but the significance of the use of ʾhb here lies in the evaluative role it plays in wisdom texts and in prophetic texts, which are the majority in these domains. In particular, the relation between the identity of the lover (i.e. generic or individual), the nature of the beloved (i.e. what is being loved), and the linguistic form of ’hb (e.g. negation, commandment), indicate positive or negative evaluation with a social relevance, as will be elaborated in Chapter 6. 4.4 The relevance of volition to the conceptualisation of ’hb Volitionality is not only relevant to the social character of ’hb (i.e., its hierarchical use), but is particularly interesting in relation to a common approach to emotion in (evolutionary) psycho-logical and cognitive-linguistic literature according to which the experience of emotion is seen as a physiological, spontaneous (uncontrolled) reaction to stimuli. Well known examples from evolutionary psychology are Ekman et al.’s (1972) and Ekman’s (1992) studies on the facial expression of emotion, such as raised cheek muscles in a state of happiness (e.g., a smile) or raised eyebrows in a state of surprise. According to this framework, emotion and its (facial)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

M F MG INAN ANIM

lover beloved

00.20.40.6

0.81

1.2

M MG INAN

lover beloved

00.20.40.60.81

1.2

MG M INAN

lover beloved

expression are essential for survival and have an evolutionary function (see Plutchik 1980 and also Barrett 2006 on emotion as caused states). In the framework of cognitive-linguistics, Kövecses’ (1986, 2000, 2005) work, for example, clearly indicated this approach in regard to the metaphor and metonymy of emotion, which often reflect a physical reaction to an external stimulus, for example an increase in body heat in a state of anger caused by another person or event (see also Lakoff 1987 and Wierzbicka 1999). This general approach is also indicated in grammatical theory regarding emotive and mental verbs (also called psych verbs), according to which the grammatical subject of an emotion verb is usually the one undergoing the experi-ence, and hence not necessarily volitional and non-agentive, but bearing the semantic role of ‘experiencer’. 18 Volition is seen as a prototypical feature of agentivity (see, for example, Dowty 1991; Langacker 1991; Givón 2001; Næss 2007), or at least as one of its main compo-nents (Jackendoff 1990). Consequently, emotion verbs (unless causative as in ‘irritate’ or ‘frighten’) are often not strongly associated with volitionality in the same way that other verb types are, as, for example, devastation (e.g., ‘break’, ‘kill’) and contact verbs (e.g., ‘touch’, ‘hit’). Returning to the domain of Divinity, the use of ’hb in this cultural domain partially deviates from this general pattern and shows that this emotion in BH can be associated with different degrees of volitionality, at least in some contexts. Regardless of Divinity domain, BH is not unique in this respect, as association between love and volition occurs in other languages as well. Love is often expressed by want in informal (spoken) English and love songs (e.g., Bob Dylan 1966, I want you; Elvis Costello 1986 I want you). Batic (2011) noted that volition is a common component of love/desire in African languages, as indicated, for example, by the use of the verb so ‘want’ in Hausa oral literature (tatsunyoyi) and social media to express love/de-sire in the domain of Romance. Moreover, Batic (2011) stated that volition is one of the two main components that constitute love in Hausa, with emotion being the other one. Another example of volition presented by Batic (2011) was taken from Bole, a Chadic language, where the verb ndol ‘want’ is used to express romantic love/desire. Tramutoli (2015) showed that the Swahili root pend denotes either ‘like’, ‘love’, or ‘will’, and in religious contexts volition and love are thus associated through the use of verbs derived from this root (Tramutoli 2015: 79, 85). These associations between love and volition indeed suggest that volition is an inherent com-ponent in these languages, as Batic (2017) claimed for Hausa. Such a claim cannot be straight-forwardly made for ’hb in BH, and especially not for ’hb-events with human lovers, which usually denote a spontaneous experience with or without a given stimulus. In contrast, voli-tionality in association with ’hb seems to play a role in the socialness of this lexeme. And yet, the existence of association between volitionality and love in the African languages mentioned above suggests a possible conceptual link between the two also in BH, and which may explain the attribution of volitionality to the use of ’hb in the first place. Regardless of emotions, Næss (2007) showed that volition does not necessarily contradict the undergoing of experience or action, as indicated by cross-linguistic variation in the 18 As Croft (1991) noted, causative emotive constructions such as “X pleases/irritates Y” may have a volitional agent (i.e., the semantic role of the subject X) and a non-volitional experiencer (Y); see also Malchukov 2005. The attention in the present thesis is mainly directed toward the volition of an experiencer, rather than the causer of emotion, which in most of the cases is also the subject.


Chapter 4 ׀ 82

grammatical encoding of the experiencer and the stimulus participants of the different types of experience (e.g., emotion, perception). According to her, volition does not always coincide with instigation (i.e., cause/stimulus), but may occur in a ‘causee’ (i.e., experiencer) of an ac-tion, as in the examples from the Kannada language in (21). The use of the dative case marker in (21a) marks a non-volitional action; the use of the instrumental case in (21b) marks a voli-tional eating. In both cases, the one undergoing the experience is not straightforwardly the instigator of the action, but is caused to act by another actor. (21) a. Avanu nanage bisketannu tinnisidanu he.NOM me.DAT biscuit.ACC ate.CAUSE ‘He fed me a biscuit.’ b. Avanu manninda bisketannu tinnisidanu he.NOM me.INST biscuit.ACC ate.CAUSE ‘He made me eat a biscuit.’ (Næss 2007: 201) The commanded use of ’hb in the domain of Divinity and when the lover is human can be analysed in a similar way. Instigation corresponds here to the commandment by God, and is thus not a property of the experiencer of ’hb. In contrast to the example in (21b), which may imply ‘forcing to eat’, the commandment does not indicate being forced to love God; rather, obedience to it depends on the experiencer’s volition. And yet, obeying the commandment has a lower degree of volitionality than choice. This suggests that the relation between emotional experience and volition should be re-examined, considering volition as scalar rather than as an absolute property. In the case of ’hb in the domain of Divinity, this volition scale is indicated by the prototypical sense of choice or preference when God is the lover and the prototypical sense of obedience when the lover is human. This is illustrated by Figure 4.19, in which the sense of choice indicates the highest degree of volition (left end of the continuum), while spon-taneous, non-volitional love indicates the lowest (right end), with the commanded love of hu-mans somewhere in between.

choice commandment spontaneity (lover=God) (lover=human) (lover=God/human)

High volitionality Low volitionality

Figure 4.19: Scalar volition of ’hb in the cultural domain of Divinity 4.5 Conclusion The general observations regarding the use of ’hb in BH were specified by an examination of ’hb within each of the individual cultural domains. This examination yields a more nuanced, context-based social profile of ’hb, in which also gender-based hierarchy, and not only seman-tic asymmetry, is clearly domain-specific. A prototypical gender-based hierarchy was indicated

in the related cultural domains of Kinship and Adultery, with the majority of those in the role of lover being men, and an implied (female) negative connotation in Adultery. Asymmetric meaning is characteristic of the lexeme’s use in the domain of Divinity, where either God or a human being may be the lover participant, but the two types differ from one another in the degree of volition that is involved in the use of ’hb. Both patterns indicate social hierarchy, either through constraints on the identity of the lover and the beloved or by the different mean-ing of ’hb with different lover-identities. Except for these two clear patterns, a general male-dominance in the use of ’hb is indicated by the overall underrepresentation of women in the role of both the lover and the beloved, and which may reflect the same pattern in other biblical texts regardless of the use of ’hb. The examination thus far provides a more elaborate account of the use of ’hb and its associ-ation with socialness and sociocultural order, showing how it is adjusted to each specific con-text and cultural domain. Furthermore, this examination shows that a certain degree of voli-tionality is an important component of ’hb, especially in the domain of Divinity, but also in other domains. In addition, the use of ’hb with an inanimate (other than divine-related) beloved adds an evaluative role and thereby contributes to its sociocultural profile. Finally, the present chapter clearly shows that the semantic field of ’hb in BH is complex and rich, and, more importantly, the observations here support the idea that ’hb prototypically encodes social in-teraction and, to a lesser extent, individual inner emotive state. These observations provide additional support to the findings of the earlier studies on ’hb and other emotion words in BH that were discussed in Chapter 3. Before further discussing the relation between the terms of affection and social order in Chapter 6, the following chapter elaborates on the volitionality of ’hb. In particular, volitionality implies the possible transitivity of ’hb in some of its occur-rences. This will be discussed within the perspective of prototypical transitivity.



grammatical encoding of the experiencer and the stimulus participants of the different types of experience (e.g., emotion, perception). According to her, volition does not always coincide with instigation (i.e., cause/stimulus), but may occur in a ‘causee’ (i.e., experiencer) of an ac-tion, as in the examples from the Kannada language in (21). The use of the dative case marker in (21a) marks a non-volitional action; the use of the instrumental case in (21b) marks a voli-tional eating. In both cases, the one undergoing the experience is not straightforwardly the instigator of the action, but is caused to act by another actor. (21) a. Avanu nanage bisketannu tinnisidanu he.NOM me.DAT biscuit.ACC ate.CAUSE ‘He fed me a biscuit.’ b. Avanu manninda bisketannu tinnisidanu he.NOM me.INST biscuit.ACC ate.CAUSE ‘He made me eat a biscuit.’ (Næss 2007: 201) The commanded use of ’hb in the domain of Divinity and when the lover is human can be analysed in a similar way. Instigation corresponds here to the commandment by God, and is thus not a property of the experiencer of ’hb. In contrast to the example in (21b), which may imply ‘forcing to eat’, the commandment does not indicate being forced to love God; rather, obedience to it depends on the experiencer’s volition. And yet, obeying the commandment has a lower degree of volitionality than choice. This suggests that the relation between emotional experience and volition should be re-examined, considering volition as scalar rather than as an absolute property. In the case of ’hb in the domain of Divinity, this volition scale is indicated by the prototypical sense of choice or preference when God is the lover and the prototypical sense of obedience when the lover is human. This is illustrated by Figure 4.19, in which the sense of choice indicates the highest degree of volition (left end of the continuum), while spon-taneous, non-volitional love indicates the lowest (right end), with the commanded love of hu-mans somewhere in between.

choice commandment spontaneity (lover=God) (lover=human) (lover=God/human)

High volitionality Low volitionality

Figure 4.19: Scalar volition of ’hb in the cultural domain of Divinity 4.5 Conclusion The general observations regarding the use of ’hb in BH were specified by an examination of ’hb within each of the individual cultural domains. This examination yields a more nuanced, context-based social profile of ’hb, in which also gender-based hierarchy, and not only seman-tic asymmetry, is clearly domain-specific. A prototypical gender-based hierarchy was indicated

in the related cultural domains of Kinship and Adultery, with the majority of those in the role of lover being men, and an implied (female) negative connotation in Adultery. Asymmetric meaning is characteristic of the lexeme’s use in the domain of Divinity, where either God or a human being may be the lover participant, but the two types differ from one another in the degree of volition that is involved in the use of ’hb. Both patterns indicate social hierarchy, either through constraints on the identity of the lover and the beloved or by the different mean-ing of ’hb with different lover-identities. Except for these two clear patterns, a general male-dominance in the use of ’hb is indicated by the overall underrepresentation of women in the role of both the lover and the beloved, and which may reflect the same pattern in other biblical texts regardless of the use of ’hb. The examination thus far provides a more elaborate account of the use of ’hb and its associ-ation with socialness and sociocultural order, showing how it is adjusted to each specific con-text and cultural domain. Furthermore, this examination shows that a certain degree of voli-tionality is an important component of ’hb, especially in the domain of Divinity, but also in other domains. In addition, the use of ’hb with an inanimate (other than divine-related) beloved adds an evaluative role and thereby contributes to its sociocultural profile. Finally, the present chapter clearly shows that the semantic field of ’hb in BH is complex and rich, and, more importantly, the observations here support the idea that ’hb prototypically encodes social in-teraction and, to a lesser extent, individual inner emotive state. These observations provide additional support to the findings of the earlier studies on ’hb and other emotion words in BH that were discussed in Chapter 3. Before further discussing the relation between the terms of affection and social order in Chapter 6, the following chapter elaborates on the volitionality of ’hb. In particular, volitionality implies the possible transitivity of ’hb in some of its occur-rences. This will be discussed within the perspective of prototypical transitivity.


Chapter 5. The semantic transitivity of ’hb 5.1 Introduction The use of ’hb often entails conduct and action at all levels of social life, with varying degrees of volition. In this sense, ’hb may stand in contrast to other emotion terms in BH (such as sadness, anger, and shame), and certainly contrasts with emotion terms in modern languages (as in English love, anger, fear, sadness, shame, etc). In Chapter 2, I explained how this under-standing of emotions is expressed in linguistic theorising according to which emotions are gen-erally seen as either non-volitional reactions to stimuli or as the underlying motivation of ac-tivities. One of the consequences of this view is that emotions (unless causal; e.g., ‘irritate’, ‘please’) are not usually associated with transitivity. This will be further discussed in the pre-sent chapter within the theoretical perspective of prototypical transitivity. A high degree of volition is one of the properties of agentivity, which in turn is one of the main components of prototypical semantic transitivity in verbs and constructions. 5.2 Transitivity and prototypicality 5.2.1 Prototypical transitivity According to a prominent approach to transitivity in (cognitive) linguistic examinations of the last decades, transitivity is not an absolute dichotomous property, but scalar (Hopper & Thomp-son 1980) or based on prototypicality (see, for example, Langacker 1987, 2000; Rice 1987; Croft 1991; Givón 2001; Næss 2007). Whether scalar or prototypical, the degree or typicality of transitivity is often determined by the grammatical as well as conceptual properties of the constructions, as the examples in (1) illustrate. (1) a. Eve cooked the apples

b. Eve cooked (yesterday/last week)

Whereas it is obvious that in both (1a) and (1b) the cooking activity is basically similar (i.e., involving the preparation of food by treating ingredients in different ways), the former clause has a higher degree of transitivity than the latter. The presence of two arguments, a subject and a direct object in (1a) places this clause higher on the transitivity scale than (1b), where there is no (direct) object present. The (non-)existence of two arguments is indicated by the form (i.e., the syntactic structure of the clause) alone. Formally, (1a) can thus be defined as a transi-tive clause and (1b) as intransitive. The event of cooking, however, entails the existence of two participants, one which cooks and one which experiences/undergoes the cooking activity. Hence, although the example in (1b) is intransitive in form (morphosyntax), to some extent transitivity exists in it as well.


Chapter 5. The semantic transitivity of ’hb 5.1 Introduction The use of ’hb often entails conduct and action at all levels of social life, with varying degrees of volition. In this sense, ’hb may stand in contrast to other emotion terms in BH (such as sadness, anger, and shame), and certainly contrasts with emotion terms in modern languages (as in English love, anger, fear, sadness, shame, etc). In Chapter 2, I explained how this under-standing of emotions is expressed in linguistic theorising according to which emotions are gen-erally seen as either non-volitional reactions to stimuli or as the underlying motivation of ac-tivities. One of the consequences of this view is that emotions (unless causal; e.g., ‘irritate’, ‘please’) are not usually associated with transitivity. This will be further discussed in the pre-sent chapter within the theoretical perspective of prototypical transitivity. A high degree of volition is one of the properties of agentivity, which in turn is one of the main components of prototypical semantic transitivity in verbs and constructions. 5.2 Transitivity and prototypicality 5.2.1 Prototypical transitivity According to a prominent approach to transitivity in (cognitive) linguistic examinations of the last decades, transitivity is not an absolute dichotomous property, but scalar (Hopper & Thomp-son 1980) or based on prototypicality (see, for example, Langacker 1987, 2000; Rice 1987; Croft 1991; Givón 2001; Næss 2007). Whether scalar or prototypical, the degree or typicality of transitivity is often determined by the grammatical as well as conceptual properties of the constructions, as the examples in (1) illustrate. (1) a. Eve cooked the apples

b. Eve cooked (yesterday/last week)

Whereas it is obvious that in both (1a) and (1b) the cooking activity is basically similar (i.e., involving the preparation of food by treating ingredients in different ways), the former clause has a higher degree of transitivity than the latter. The presence of two arguments, a subject and a direct object in (1a) places this clause higher on the transitivity scale than (1b), where there is no (direct) object present. The (non-)existence of two arguments is indicated by the form (i.e., the syntactic structure of the clause) alone. Formally, (1a) can thus be defined as a transi-tive clause and (1b) as intransitive. The event of cooking, however, entails the existence of two participants, one which cooks and one which experiences/undergoes the cooking activity. Hence, although the example in (1b) is intransitive in form (morphosyntax), to some extent transitivity exists in it as well.


Chapter 5 ׀ 86

In their study based on crosslinguistic data, Hopper & Thompson (1980) constituted a list of ten scalar semantic parameters of transitivity, arguing that the degree of transitivity of a given clause can be determined on the basis of its rank in each of those parameters. The parameters concern the properties of the participants in an event, the action encoded in the clause, and the pragmatic/discursive aspect of the clause.19 Examples of the first type are agency (agent high/low in potency), volition (volitional/non-volitional agent), and the affectedness of the ob-ject (object totally/not affected); examples of the second are kinesis (action/non-action) and aspect (telic/atelic action); an example of the third is affirmation (affirmative/negative). These properties (or their absence) characterise the semantic roles of the participants in a transitive event, namely the agent and the patient, which can be mapped onto the clause arguments (i.e., subject and object, respectively). In (1) above, the agent (grammatical subject) has a relatively high degree of volition; that is, there is no indication of compulsory or involuntary cooking in the clause. In contrast to (1b), (1a) also includes an effected patient (grammatical object), i.e. the apples. Thus (1a) may be located higher on the transitivity scale than (1b) both syntactically and semantically. Similar to (1a), the construction in (2) has two grammatical arguments, though with a lower degree of activeness in the agent. (2) Eve called Adam The act of calling requires relatively little physical activity and can, in principle, be performed regardless of the position of the body, while cooking requires more activation, with the body in a sitting or standing position. In addition, the degree of affectedness in the patient of (2) is lower than in (1a). Affectedness in this example is simply hearing the call, regardless of a possible resulting action. The lower degree of activeness in the agent and affectedness in the patient therefore cause (2) to be less semantically transitive than (1a). What may seem simple in English, appears to be more complex in some other languages, as languages may differ from each other in the formal ways used to denote actions involving one or more participants. (3) a. kariʃ harag gever ben-36 be-‘et shark kill.3SGM.PST man aged-36 in-time xufʃat jerax dvaš holiday month honey ‘A shark killed a 36-year-old man during a honeymoon’. (http://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/18351.shtml)

b. qariʃ harag ’et ha-gever ha- tsa‘ir shark kill.3SGM.PST ACC20 DEF-man DEF-young 19 Hopper & Thompson (1980) refer to prototypical participants with ‘A’ (Agent) and ‘O’ (Object). 20 Except for pronouns, Israeli Hebrew does not mark case morphologically. The particle ’et in this example is glossed as accusative marker but it only occurs in this type of verbal constructions before a definite direct object, and hence has a structural rather than semantic meaning. An indefinite direct object, although not marked mor-phologically, does not necessarily have a lower degree of accusativity (see Danon 2001 on syntactic definiteness in Israeli Hebrew).

‘A shark killed the young man.’

c. xavera ʃeli marbitsa li kol ha-zman friend.F GEN.1S beat.SGF.PRS to.1SG all DEF-time ‘A friend of mine beats me all the time.’ (http://www.stips.co.il/singleask.asp?stipid=461283, 3.5.2012)

d. be-veiti ro’eh ’et gil‘ad ʃalit in-house.GEN.1SG see.SG.M ACC Gilad Shalit xozer ha-bajta return.SGM DEF-home.DIR ‘At my home watching (on TV) Gil’ad Shalit coming back home.’

(http://www.facebook.com/pages/ התיבה-רזוח-טילש-דעלג-תא-האור-יתיבב /18006426075335)

The examples from Israeli Hebrew in (3) illustrate some of this variation (Vardi 2015: 36). As the examples in (3a, b) show, Hebrew marks the definite direct objects with a definite article (e.g., ha-) preceded by the particle ’et, while indefinite objects are unmarked. However, in the beating-event in (3c), a definite direct object is preceded by the preposition le- ‘to’, and in the sight-event in (3d), a definite direct object is preceded by the particle ’et. Whereas the first clause in (3a) encodes a two-participant event with a volitional subject and an affected object, (3b) does the same but with a higher degree of individuation in the object, expressed by the definite article ha- and the preceding ’et. It is then possible to claim that (3b) has a higher degree of transitivity than (3a). But how can (3c, d) be analysed in terms of transitivity? The beat-event in (3c), in which both a volitional subject and an affected object are present, is ex-pressed with a prepositional object and not with the ’et particle. In the volitional sight-event in (3d), on the other hand, the ’et particle precedes the definite direct object, as in (3b), but the object is in no way affected. The ’et particle, it therefore appears, does not necessarily indicate a higher degree of transitivity, and a prepositional object does not necessarily decrease the degree of transitivity, as it is with the case in English (see Radden and Dirven 2007 on the iconic relation between the directness of the effect and the type of object, i.e., a direct vs. a prepositional object). Another problem in the definition of transitivity is formed by reflexive and reciprocal con-structions with two arguments, as in (4). (4) a. Eve washed herself b. Eve and Adam kissed Formally, both types may thus be defined as transitive constructions. In reflexive constructions, both arguments refer to the same participant, while in reflexive and reciprocal constructions, both arguments are the agent and the affected patient.


The semantic transitivity of ’hb 87 ׀

In their study based on crosslinguistic data, Hopper & Thompson (1980) constituted a list of ten scalar semantic parameters of transitivity, arguing that the degree of transitivity of a given clause can be determined on the basis of its rank in each of those parameters. The parameters concern the properties of the participants in an event, the action encoded in the clause, and the pragmatic/discursive aspect of the clause.19 Examples of the first type are agency (agent high/low in potency), volition (volitional/non-volitional agent), and the affectedness of the ob-ject (object totally/not affected); examples of the second are kinesis (action/non-action) and aspect (telic/atelic action); an example of the third is affirmation (affirmative/negative). These properties (or their absence) characterise the semantic roles of the participants in a transitive event, namely the agent and the patient, which can be mapped onto the clause arguments (i.e., subject and object, respectively). In (1) above, the agent (grammatical subject) has a relatively high degree of volition; that is, there is no indication of compulsory or involuntary cooking in the clause. In contrast to (1b), (1a) also includes an effected patient (grammatical object), i.e. the apples. Thus (1a) may be located higher on the transitivity scale than (1b) both syntactically and semantically. Similar to (1a), the construction in (2) has two grammatical arguments, though with a lower degree of activeness in the agent. (2) Eve called Adam The act of calling requires relatively little physical activity and can, in principle, be performed regardless of the position of the body, while cooking requires more activation, with the body in a sitting or standing position. In addition, the degree of affectedness in the patient of (2) is lower than in (1a). Affectedness in this example is simply hearing the call, regardless of a possible resulting action. The lower degree of activeness in the agent and affectedness in the patient therefore cause (2) to be less semantically transitive than (1a). What may seem simple in English, appears to be more complex in some other languages, as languages may differ from each other in the formal ways used to denote actions involving one or more participants. (3) a. kariʃ harag gever ben-36 be-‘et shark kill.3SGM.PST man aged-36 in-time xufʃat jerax dvaš holiday month honey ‘A shark killed a 36-year-old man during a honeymoon’. (http://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/18351.shtml)

b. qariʃ harag ’et ha-gever ha- tsa‘ir shark kill.3SGM.PST ACC20 DEF-man DEF-young 19 Hopper & Thompson (1980) refer to prototypical participants with ‘A’ (Agent) and ‘O’ (Object). 20 Except for pronouns, Israeli Hebrew does not mark case morphologically. The particle ’et in this example is glossed as accusative marker but it only occurs in this type of verbal constructions before a definite direct object, and hence has a structural rather than semantic meaning. An indefinite direct object, although not marked mor-phologically, does not necessarily have a lower degree of accusativity (see Danon 2001 on syntactic definiteness in Israeli Hebrew).

‘A shark killed the young man.’

c. xavera ʃeli marbitsa li kol ha-zman friend.F GEN.1S beat.SGF.PRS to.1SG all DEF-time ‘A friend of mine beats me all the time.’ (http://www.stips.co.il/singleask.asp?stipid=461283, 3.5.2012)

d. be-veiti ro’eh ’et gil‘ad ʃalit in-house.GEN.1SG see.SG.M ACC Gilad Shalit xozer ha-bajta return.SGM DEF-home.DIR ‘At my home watching (on TV) Gil’ad Shalit coming back home.’

(http://www.facebook.com/pages/ התיבה-רזוח-טילש-דעלג-תא-האור-יתיבב /18006426075335)

The examples from Israeli Hebrew in (3) illustrate some of this variation (Vardi 2015: 36). As the examples in (3a, b) show, Hebrew marks the definite direct objects with a definite article (e.g., ha-) preceded by the particle ’et, while indefinite objects are unmarked. However, in the beating-event in (3c), a definite direct object is preceded by the preposition le- ‘to’, and in the sight-event in (3d), a definite direct object is preceded by the particle ’et. Whereas the first clause in (3a) encodes a two-participant event with a volitional subject and an affected object, (3b) does the same but with a higher degree of individuation in the object, expressed by the definite article ha- and the preceding ’et. It is then possible to claim that (3b) has a higher degree of transitivity than (3a). But how can (3c, d) be analysed in terms of transitivity? The beat-event in (3c), in which both a volitional subject and an affected object are present, is ex-pressed with a prepositional object and not with the ’et particle. In the volitional sight-event in (3d), on the other hand, the ’et particle precedes the definite direct object, as in (3b), but the object is in no way affected. The ’et particle, it therefore appears, does not necessarily indicate a higher degree of transitivity, and a prepositional object does not necessarily decrease the degree of transitivity, as it is with the case in English (see Radden and Dirven 2007 on the iconic relation between the directness of the effect and the type of object, i.e., a direct vs. a prepositional object). Another problem in the definition of transitivity is formed by reflexive and reciprocal con-structions with two arguments, as in (4). (4) a. Eve washed herself b. Eve and Adam kissed Formally, both types may thus be defined as transitive constructions. In reflexive constructions, both arguments refer to the same participant, while in reflexive and reciprocal constructions, both arguments are the agent and the affected patient.


Chapter 5 ׀ 88

What the examples above indicate is the difficulty in determining transitivity on the basis of the formal aspect of constructions alone. Transitivity should, therefore, be more correctly de-fined on the basis of different semantic features, their degree, and the way they are formally encoded. Studies subsequent to Hopper & Thompson (1980) have likewise followed a multifactorial approach and have regarded transitivity as a scalar rather than an absolute phenomenon. Ac-cordingly, the degrees of semantic and morphological transitivity match. Tsunoda’s (1981, 1985) semantics of the verb, for example, dictated a hierarchy in transitivity that is reflected in case-marking cross-linguistically. Verbs that denote a direct effect on the patient (e.g., ‘kill’, ‘break’) are prototypically transitive and are thus positioned high in the hierarchy, while verbs that denote relations, such as possession, are positioned toward the bottom of the hierarchy (see also Malchukov 2005). Approaching transitivity with prototypicality, Langacker (1991) took the perspective from which the event is viewed (and its experiential basis) as the motivation underlying transitive encoding in the grammar. In particular, Langacker’s prototypical action chain model as the prototypical model of transitivity profiles the transfer of energy from an ‘energy source’ (agent) to an ‘energy sink’ (patient), with the result of a change in the state of the latter. Langacker argued that this model underlies the grammatical notions of subject and object and the trajector (TR)-landmark (LM) relation they encode (i.e., the dynamics of the first in relation to the stationary of the latter). A prototypical subject is dynamic and a proto-typical landmark is stationary in relation to the subject participant. Moreover, a prototypical subject is a volitional agent (energy source), while a prototypical object is a passive patient (energy sink). The fundamental elements in this model, or image schema, are energy and mo-tion and the relation between them in our experiential perception, namely that motion drives energy. This, Langacker emphasised, is an asymmetric relationship, the TR-LM asymmetry. This shifts the focus to the participants, i.e., the agent and patient (but also possible others, such as benefective and instrument). Whereas the subject and object encode grammatical relations in a construction, participants such as the agent and patient encode the semantic roles of an event. Langacker’s prototypical action chain model of transitivity entails the existence of more than two semantic roles, but the number and their specific characteristics are debated amongst scholars. Dowty (1991) also approached this problem with a prototype model, but unlike Langacker his focus is on participant roles rather than the event. Accordingly, Dowty (1991: 572–73) proposed two categories of proto-properties, one for Proto-Agent and the other for Proto-Pa-tient. Properties of the Proto-Agent include volitionality, sentience, causing an event or a change in state, and movement (relative to another participant). The Proto-Patient, by contrast, undergoes a change of state, is an incremental theme (i.e., determining telic aspects), is causally affected by another participant, and is stationary (relative to the movement of another partici-pant). The arguments of a transitive clause, subject, and direct object, accordingly have the maximal properties of the proto-agent and proto-patient respectively. Transitivity, according to these approaches, is not a property of a verb regardless of its grammatical context; rather, it is a complex grammatical category in which (inherent) characteristics of verbs are intertwined with the properties of the event and its participants (see also Rice 1987; Kemmer 1993; Croft 1991, 1994; Givón 2001; Tylor 1989, 2009).

Næss’s (2007) functional-typological approach continued the general approach of prototypi-cality.21 Emphasising the relevance of cross-linguistic comparison, she maintained that “the grammatical phenomenon of transitivity can be described, from a cross-linguistic perspective, in terms of semantic prototype; that is, a cluster of semantic properties which characterise the construction known as a transitive clause across languages” (Næss 2007: 5). Accordingly, she described a prototypical transitive clause as one in which the prototypical semantic properties (based on cross-linguistic comparison) are matched with the two-argument structure. The ques-tion that comes with this, however, is what semantic properties are considered to be prototyp-ical transitive. Næss combined prototypical theory with Kemmer’s (1993) distinguishability of partici-pants, according to which a full distinguishability between the two participants, physically as well as conceptually, is a key notion of prototypical transitivity and its encoding in the lan-guage. Kemmer’s (1993) theory emphasised the role of participants in the determination of transitivity, and in addition eliminated the problems with reflexive and reciprocal clauses, such as in the examples at (4) above. Following Kemmer’s basic approach, Næss strengthened it with the specification of ‘distinctness’ instead of ‘distinguishability’ with the maximally dis-tinct arguments hypothesis: (5) THE MAXIMALLY DISTINCT ARGUMENTS HYPOTHESIS

A prototypical transitive clause is one where the two participants are maximally semantically distinct in terms of their roles in the event described by the clause.

(Næss 2007: 30, boldface and uppercase in the source) Næss’s hypothesis not only stressed the significance of the two absolutely distinct participants and their roles in the event that is encoded by a transitive clause, as Kemmer (1993) did, but also amplified the status of the agent and the patient as the most common categories of partic-ipants.22 According to Næss, these two categories:

… should be defined in maximal opposition to each other. That is, it should be part of the category “agent” that it does not show any of the defining properties of pa-tients; and conversely, it should be part of the definition of the category “patient” that it does not show any of the defining properties of agents. (Næss 2007: 30, boldface in the source)

Thus, according to Næss’s hypothesis, the prototypical properties of transitivity are the proto-typical properties of the agent and the patient.

21 The functional-typological approach emphasises cognitive aspects involved in language and the significance of language function and use to the understanding of linguistic phenomena. Cross-linguistic investigation and comparison enables to explore how different languages formalise similar or comparable functions. This is ide-ally done by the following of semantic/pragmatic criteria (e.g. concepts) that are independent of a particular lan-guage. 22 It is important to note that Næss (2007: 36) distinguished between grammatical and conceptual agency. The former refers to obligatory thematic relations, based on verbs; the latter to participant roles in a given event.



What the examples above indicate is the difficulty in determining transitivity on the basis of the formal aspect of constructions alone. Transitivity should, therefore, be more correctly de-fined on the basis of different semantic features, their degree, and the way they are formally encoded. Studies subsequent to Hopper & Thompson (1980) have likewise followed a multifactorial approach and have regarded transitivity as a scalar rather than an absolute phenomenon. Ac-cordingly, the degrees of semantic and morphological transitivity match. Tsunoda’s (1981, 1985) semantics of the verb, for example, dictated a hierarchy in transitivity that is reflected in case-marking cross-linguistically. Verbs that denote a direct effect on the patient (e.g., ‘kill’, ‘break’) are prototypically transitive and are thus positioned high in the hierarchy, while verbs that denote relations, such as possession, are positioned toward the bottom of the hierarchy (see also Malchukov 2005). Approaching transitivity with prototypicality, Langacker (1991) took the perspective from which the event is viewed (and its experiential basis) as the motivation underlying transitive encoding in the grammar. In particular, Langacker’s prototypical action chain model as the prototypical model of transitivity profiles the transfer of energy from an ‘energy source’ (agent) to an ‘energy sink’ (patient), with the result of a change in the state of the latter. Langacker argued that this model underlies the grammatical notions of subject and object and the trajector (TR)-landmark (LM) relation they encode (i.e., the dynamics of the first in relation to the stationary of the latter). A prototypical subject is dynamic and a proto-typical landmark is stationary in relation to the subject participant. Moreover, a prototypical subject is a volitional agent (energy source), while a prototypical object is a passive patient (energy sink). The fundamental elements in this model, or image schema, are energy and mo-tion and the relation between them in our experiential perception, namely that motion drives energy. This, Langacker emphasised, is an asymmetric relationship, the TR-LM asymmetry. This shifts the focus to the participants, i.e., the agent and patient (but also possible others, such as benefective and instrument). Whereas the subject and object encode grammatical relations in a construction, participants such as the agent and patient encode the semantic roles of an event. Langacker’s prototypical action chain model of transitivity entails the existence of more than two semantic roles, but the number and their specific characteristics are debated amongst scholars. Dowty (1991) also approached this problem with a prototype model, but unlike Langacker his focus is on participant roles rather than the event. Accordingly, Dowty (1991: 572–73) proposed two categories of proto-properties, one for Proto-Agent and the other for Proto-Pa-tient. Properties of the Proto-Agent include volitionality, sentience, causing an event or a change in state, and movement (relative to another participant). The Proto-Patient, by contrast, undergoes a change of state, is an incremental theme (i.e., determining telic aspects), is causally affected by another participant, and is stationary (relative to the movement of another partici-pant). The arguments of a transitive clause, subject, and direct object, accordingly have the maximal properties of the proto-agent and proto-patient respectively. Transitivity, according to these approaches, is not a property of a verb regardless of its grammatical context; rather, it is a complex grammatical category in which (inherent) characteristics of verbs are intertwined with the properties of the event and its participants (see also Rice 1987; Kemmer 1993; Croft 1991, 1994; Givón 2001; Tylor 1989, 2009).

Næss’s (2007) functional-typological approach continued the general approach of prototypi-cality.21 Emphasising the relevance of cross-linguistic comparison, she maintained that “the grammatical phenomenon of transitivity can be described, from a cross-linguistic perspective, in terms of semantic prototype; that is, a cluster of semantic properties which characterise the construction known as a transitive clause across languages” (Næss 2007: 5). Accordingly, she described a prototypical transitive clause as one in which the prototypical semantic properties (based on cross-linguistic comparison) are matched with the two-argument structure. The ques-tion that comes with this, however, is what semantic properties are considered to be prototyp-ical transitive. Næss combined prototypical theory with Kemmer’s (1993) distinguishability of partici-pants, according to which a full distinguishability between the two participants, physically as well as conceptually, is a key notion of prototypical transitivity and its encoding in the lan-guage. Kemmer’s (1993) theory emphasised the role of participants in the determination of transitivity, and in addition eliminated the problems with reflexive and reciprocal clauses, such as in the examples at (4) above. Following Kemmer’s basic approach, Næss strengthened it with the specification of ‘distinctness’ instead of ‘distinguishability’ with the maximally dis-tinct arguments hypothesis: (5) THE MAXIMALLY DISTINCT ARGUMENTS HYPOTHESIS

A prototypical transitive clause is one where the two participants are maximally semantically distinct in terms of their roles in the event described by the clause.

(Næss 2007: 30, boldface and uppercase in the source) Næss’s hypothesis not only stressed the significance of the two absolutely distinct participants and their roles in the event that is encoded by a transitive clause, as Kemmer (1993) did, but also amplified the status of the agent and the patient as the most common categories of partic-ipants.22 According to Næss, these two categories:

… should be defined in maximal opposition to each other. That is, it should be part of the category “agent” that it does not show any of the defining properties of pa-tients; and conversely, it should be part of the definition of the category “patient” that it does not show any of the defining properties of agents. (Næss 2007: 30, boldface in the source)

Thus, according to Næss’s hypothesis, the prototypical properties of transitivity are the proto-typical properties of the agent and the patient.

21 The functional-typological approach emphasises cognitive aspects involved in language and the significance of language function and use to the understanding of linguistic phenomena. Cross-linguistic investigation and comparison enables to explore how different languages formalise similar or comparable functions. This is ide-ally done by the following of semantic/pragmatic criteria (e.g. concepts) that are independent of a particular lan-guage. 22 It is important to note that Næss (2007: 36) distinguished between grammatical and conceptual agency. The former refers to obligatory thematic relations, based on verbs; the latter to participant roles in a given event.


Chapter 5 ׀ 90

Based on cross-linguistic patterns, and on earlier observations, Næss argued that the distinc-tion between the agent and the patient is clearly enabled by three binary properties, namely volition [±VOL], instigation [±INST], and affectedness [±AFF]. The ‘+’ value indicates a high extent of the property and the ‘-’ value a low or no extent, so that a maximum distinctness of the agent and patient can be illustrated as in Table 5.1 (taken from Næss 2007: 44).

Agent Patient Volitionality + - Instigation + - Affectedness - +

Table 5.1: Næss’s (2007) ‘Agent and Patient as maximally distinct categories’ The three binary properties, according to Næss, reflect the core of the distinction between the agent and the patient (i.e., the active vs. the passive role), and, in an economical way, encom-pass the identical, similar, and additive properties that have been commonly observed by other scholars. Næss (2007) offered a useful theoretical approach to transitivity, based on functional typol-ogy, where patterns and generalisations of typological data are the instrument for exploring the underlying motivation for linguistic forms. Similar to cognitive linguistics, the functional ap-proach also sees language as the (iconic) reflection of experience, and the typological data adds robustness to this. The relevance of prototypical transitivity to emotion and its relevance to ’hb will be discussed in the following section. 5.2.2 Prototypical transitivity and emotion Næss’s (2007) prototypical transitivity is based on three binary properties of the agent and the patient, namely volition, instigation, and affectedness. Accordingly, a prototypical transitive event is one in which a volitional, instigating, unaffected agent and a non-volitional, non-insti-gating, affected patient are involved (see Table 5.1). A prototypical transitive clause encodes such event. This definition is quite obvious for physical events, where a transfer of energy and an affected, passive patient are involved (e.g., X breaks Y); it is less obvious for some sensory perceptive or cognitive events such as ‘watching’ and ‘recalling’, and even less obvious for emotive-events such as ‘fearing’ and ‘loving’. The two latter categories are by definition non-prototypical transitive, as their participants are neither prototypical agentive nor prototypical patient-like according to the definition above. Participants in sensory, cognitive, or emotive-events have the role of ‘experiencer’, as they undergo an experience instead of instigating an activity. The second participant in these events prototypically has the role of ‘stimulus’ or ‘theme’. The examples in (6) illustrate the participant roles in perception/cognitive/emotive-events. (6) a. Eve watches/recalls Adam b. Adam hears Eve

c. Eve fears/loves Adam

All three examples encode the experience of the first participant (subject) in the clause that is stimulated by or directed to the second participant (object). The experiencer-participant may be but is not necessarily, volitional, instigating, and affected by the experience; the agent-par-ticipant is a non-volitional, non-instigating stimulus and may or may not be affected by the experience. In addition, in all three examples, the experiencer-participants are conscious and sentient. Hence, both experiencer- and agent-participants may share some common properties, such as volition, instigation, consciousness, and sentience. These properties imply the existence of an element of activeness in experiences of these types, although this is not the typical phys-ical activeness of agent-participants. Næss (2007: 41) argued that the role of experiencer re-quires the active involvement of “cognitive capacities” in the event, and accordingly she in-cluded sentience in the property of volitionality to fit the role types of both agent and experi-encer (in cases of a volitional experiencer). The activeness of the experiencer is also observed by Langacker (1991: 238–39), who re-ferred to both agents and experiencers as “active participants”, and furthermore Langacker (2002: 22) argued that clauses with the experiencer retain the asymmetry that occurs in the prototypical transitive clauses (i.e., a unidirectional transfer of energy). Whereas asymmetry in a transitive clause is based on the direction of the energy transfer (i.e., from agent to patient), asymmetry in a clause with an experiencer-participant is based on the consciousness and sen-tience of the experiencer that is absent in the stimulus. Croft (1991) showed, however, that such asymmetry does not always exist in clauses with emotion and mental verbs, and argued that it depends on the semantics of the verb (e.g., causative, active, inchoative). For example, whereas the experiencer of ‘like’ is the subject of a clause, the experiencer of ‘please’ or ‘irri-tate’ is instead the object (see also Malchukov 2005 on case patterns of emotion verbs and their alternating mappings from semantic roles to grammatical relations). Such cases of counter-asymmetry do not necessarily make the events they encode more typically transitive. The ex-periencer of irritation or pleasantness may be affected to some extent, but the cause of these states is not necessarily volitional or instigating, and may often be inanimate. The causal struc-ture of such events and the grammatical construction that encodes them, thus, may reflect a relatively higher degree of transitivity than that of non-causal experience events, but they are nevertheless non-prototypical. In summary, whether causal or not, constructions of sensory perception, cognition, or emotion strongly deviate from prototypical transitivity due to the dif-ficulty to absolutely distinguish the cause/stimulus of the experience from the one who under-goes the experience. The formal encoding of this category varies across languages, and reflects this difficulty. According to the ‘maximally distinct arguments hypothesis’ followed here, emotion-events are in general non-prototypically transitive. This is in agreement with a general understanding of the experience of emotions such as fear, anger, sadness, joy, and love as a reaction to stimuli rather than as a volitional action. Generally, the experiencer of emotion is (at least to some extent) affected by the stimulus, either physically (e.g., an increase in heart rate in cases of fear, an increase in body heat in cases of anger) or mentally (e.g., confusion in cases of fear or sadness). This general understanding is clearly indicated cross-linguistically in figurative lan-guage use, such as in the English expressions ‘boiling with anger’ or ‘love sick’, the Dutch



Based on cross-linguistic patterns, and on earlier observations, Næss argued that the distinc-tion between the agent and the patient is clearly enabled by three binary properties, namely volition [±VOL], instigation [±INST], and affectedness [±AFF]. The ‘+’ value indicates a high extent of the property and the ‘-’ value a low or no extent, so that a maximum distinctness of the agent and patient can be illustrated as in Table 5.1 (taken from Næss 2007: 44).

Agent Patient Volitionality + - Instigation + - Affectedness - +

Table 5.1: Næss’s (2007) ‘Agent and Patient as maximally distinct categories’ The three binary properties, according to Næss, reflect the core of the distinction between the agent and the patient (i.e., the active vs. the passive role), and, in an economical way, encom-pass the identical, similar, and additive properties that have been commonly observed by other scholars. Næss (2007) offered a useful theoretical approach to transitivity, based on functional typol-ogy, where patterns and generalisations of typological data are the instrument for exploring the underlying motivation for linguistic forms. Similar to cognitive linguistics, the functional ap-proach also sees language as the (iconic) reflection of experience, and the typological data adds robustness to this. The relevance of prototypical transitivity to emotion and its relevance to ’hb will be discussed in the following section. 5.2.2 Prototypical transitivity and emotion Næss’s (2007) prototypical transitivity is based on three binary properties of the agent and the patient, namely volition, instigation, and affectedness. Accordingly, a prototypical transitive event is one in which a volitional, instigating, unaffected agent and a non-volitional, non-insti-gating, affected patient are involved (see Table 5.1). A prototypical transitive clause encodes such event. This definition is quite obvious for physical events, where a transfer of energy and an affected, passive patient are involved (e.g., X breaks Y); it is less obvious for some sensory perceptive or cognitive events such as ‘watching’ and ‘recalling’, and even less obvious for emotive-events such as ‘fearing’ and ‘loving’. The two latter categories are by definition non-prototypical transitive, as their participants are neither prototypical agentive nor prototypical patient-like according to the definition above. Participants in sensory, cognitive, or emotive-events have the role of ‘experiencer’, as they undergo an experience instead of instigating an activity. The second participant in these events prototypically has the role of ‘stimulus’ or ‘theme’. The examples in (6) illustrate the participant roles in perception/cognitive/emotive-events. (6) a. Eve watches/recalls Adam b. Adam hears Eve

c. Eve fears/loves Adam

All three examples encode the experience of the first participant (subject) in the clause that is stimulated by or directed to the second participant (object). The experiencer-participant may be but is not necessarily, volitional, instigating, and affected by the experience; the agent-par-ticipant is a non-volitional, non-instigating stimulus and may or may not be affected by the experience. In addition, in all three examples, the experiencer-participants are conscious and sentient. Hence, both experiencer- and agent-participants may share some common properties, such as volition, instigation, consciousness, and sentience. These properties imply the existence of an element of activeness in experiences of these types, although this is not the typical phys-ical activeness of agent-participants. Næss (2007: 41) argued that the role of experiencer re-quires the active involvement of “cognitive capacities” in the event, and accordingly she in-cluded sentience in the property of volitionality to fit the role types of both agent and experi-encer (in cases of a volitional experiencer). The activeness of the experiencer is also observed by Langacker (1991: 238–39), who re-ferred to both agents and experiencers as “active participants”, and furthermore Langacker (2002: 22) argued that clauses with the experiencer retain the asymmetry that occurs in the prototypical transitive clauses (i.e., a unidirectional transfer of energy). Whereas asymmetry in a transitive clause is based on the direction of the energy transfer (i.e., from agent to patient), asymmetry in a clause with an experiencer-participant is based on the consciousness and sen-tience of the experiencer that is absent in the stimulus. Croft (1991) showed, however, that such asymmetry does not always exist in clauses with emotion and mental verbs, and argued that it depends on the semantics of the verb (e.g., causative, active, inchoative). For example, whereas the experiencer of ‘like’ is the subject of a clause, the experiencer of ‘please’ or ‘irri-tate’ is instead the object (see also Malchukov 2005 on case patterns of emotion verbs and their alternating mappings from semantic roles to grammatical relations). Such cases of counter-asymmetry do not necessarily make the events they encode more typically transitive. The ex-periencer of irritation or pleasantness may be affected to some extent, but the cause of these states is not necessarily volitional or instigating, and may often be inanimate. The causal struc-ture of such events and the grammatical construction that encodes them, thus, may reflect a relatively higher degree of transitivity than that of non-causal experience events, but they are nevertheless non-prototypical. In summary, whether causal or not, constructions of sensory perception, cognition, or emotion strongly deviate from prototypical transitivity due to the dif-ficulty to absolutely distinguish the cause/stimulus of the experience from the one who under-goes the experience. The formal encoding of this category varies across languages, and reflects this difficulty. According to the ‘maximally distinct arguments hypothesis’ followed here, emotion-events are in general non-prototypically transitive. This is in agreement with a general understanding of the experience of emotions such as fear, anger, sadness, joy, and love as a reaction to stimuli rather than as a volitional action. Generally, the experiencer of emotion is (at least to some extent) affected by the stimulus, either physically (e.g., an increase in heart rate in cases of fear, an increase in body heat in cases of anger) or mentally (e.g., confusion in cases of fear or sadness). This general understanding is clearly indicated cross-linguistically in figurative lan-guage use, such as in the English expressions ‘boiling with anger’ or ‘love sick’, the Dutch


Chapter 5 ׀ 92

expression de stoom komt uit zijn oren (lit. ‘the steam comes out of his ears’ to mean ‘he is very angry’), and the Israeli Hebrew expressions ha-dam ‘alah lo la-roʃ (lit. ‘the blood rose to his head’ to mean ‘he became very angry’) or makpi’ dam (lit. ‘blood-freezing’ to mean ‘blood-curdling’). Such conceptions of emotions in language are also noticeable in linguistic theoris-ing, such as in Lakoff & Johnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory and Wierzbicka’s (1999, review) Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), as were discussed in Chapter 2. Applying a prototypical approach to the examination of transitivity in the use of ’hb in BH would be expected to show similar patterns to the non-prototypical use of emotions in modern languages (such as English), namely a general mismatch between the principles of prototypical transitivity and the conceptualisation of emotion in language. Accordingly, experiencers of ’hb-events would be expected to have a relatively low degree of volitionality and instigation, but a relatively high degree of affectedness. As was demonstrated in the previous chapters, this is not always the case. The discussion of other emotions in BH in Chapter 3 suggested that ’hb is not alone in this pattern, as volitionality was also found to be a property of the experiencer in the use of other emotions. This suggests that the semantic transitivity of emotion-events in BH (and of ’hb in particular) may be closer to prototypical transitive events than to emotion-events in other languages. The following section is dedicated to the examination of ’hb in light of the ‘maximally distinct arguments hypothesis’. 5.3 ’hb in light of the ‘maximally distinct arguments hypothesis’ The lexeme ’hb occurs in BH in different grammatical constructions, including transitive, in-transitive, negation, imperative, relative clause, etc. In 84% of its occurrences, ’hb is a verb and in the remaining 16% it is a noun. Of the verbal occurrences, 42% appear in transitive clauses, as in (7) where (in (7a)) the direct object is indefinite. 23 (7) a. yāhwəh ’ōhēb ṣaddîqîm ‘Yhwh loves the righteous ones’ (Ps 146:8) b. wayye’ĕhab ya‘ăqōb ’et-rāḥēl ‘Jacob loved Rachel.’ (Gen 29:18) In such constructions, a distinction between the experiencer and the theme exists only in the sense that the two are distinct entites playing different roles in the clause. However, neither the volition and instigation of the experiencer are indicated nor the affectedness of the theme. In this sense, transitivity in (7) is indeed non-prototypical. This fully concurs with Næss’s hy-pothesis according to which the maximal distinction between arguments and their prototypical semantic properties prototypically match the two-arguments clause. I will show that this is not necessarily applicable in BH. First, the verb inflection system of Hebrew enables the affixation

23 A definite direct object in BH may be marked either by the proceeding particle ’et (usually translated as ‘ac-cusative particle’) or a pronominal suffix affixed to ’et or to the verb (see Coleman 2018 on Differential Object Marking (DOM) in BH, and van Loon 2012 on the variational use of ’et).

of arguments to the verb, and thus the existence of two distinct participants may be encoded accordingly, as in (8) where the subject, Cain is encoded by the verb form (i.e., 3rd M singular, indicated by ya-) and the direct object is suffixed to the verb (3rd M singular, indicated by -ēhû). (8) wayyāqom qayin ’el-hebel ’āḥîw wayyahargēhû ‘Cain rose up in to Abel his brother and killed him’ (Gen 4:8) Similar constructions exist also with ’hb, as in (9a), a conjunctive construction where the sub-ject, known from the main clause, is encoded by the verb form (i.e., 3rd M singular) and the direct object is suffixed to the verb (3rd M singular, indicated by -o). The degree of semantic transitivity of this and similar constructions in BH, I argue, does not differ from that of other (transitive) constructions such as (9b–f). (9) a. kî-’ahăbāt napšô ’ăhēbô ‘For he loved him as he loved his own soul’ (1 Sam 20:17) b. watte’ĕhab mîkal bat-šāûl ’et-dāwid ‘Saul’s daughter Michal loved David.’ (1 Sam 18:20) b. ûšṭāḥûm laššemeš wəlayyārēaḥ ûləkōl ṣbā’ haššāmayim ’ăšer ’ăhēbûm ‘They shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the celestial bodies

which they love’ (Jer 8:2) c. lə’aahăbā ’et-yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkā lišmō‘a bəkōlô ûlədābkâ-bo ‘To love Yhwh your god, to obey him [lit. hear in his voice] and to cleave to him’ (Deut 30:20)

d. śin’û-rā‘ wə’ehĕbû ṭôb ‘Hate the evil and love the good!’ (Amos 5:15) e. kî-’ōhēb ’ădāmā hāyâ ‘For he loved the soil’ (2 Chr 26:10) The degree of transitivity of ’hb-events is determined by the semantic properties volitionality, instigation, and affectedness. The first two characterise the experiencer and the latter is a prop-erty of the theme. In BH, these prototypical semantic transitive properties do not necessarily match only with the transitive two arguments-clause, as Næss’s hypothesis predicts. In other words, prototypical transitivity in BH is not necessarily indicated by a match between semantic transitivity (i.e., prototypical properties of participants) and syntactic construction. A compar-ison between (9b) and (9d) illustrates this point. The first is a simple transitive clause that expresses a spontaneous romantic love or attraction experienced by a woman; the latter is an imperative clause that conveys a general prescription, and which thus leaves room for volitional obedience or refusal. While the affectedness of the theme is not indicated for both



expression de stoom komt uit zijn oren (lit. ‘the steam comes out of his ears’ to mean ‘he is very angry’), and the Israeli Hebrew expressions ha-dam ‘alah lo la-roʃ (lit. ‘the blood rose to his head’ to mean ‘he became very angry’) or makpi’ dam (lit. ‘blood-freezing’ to mean ‘blood-curdling’). Such conceptions of emotions in language are also noticeable in linguistic theoris-ing, such as in Lakoff & Johnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory and Wierzbicka’s (1999, review) Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), as were discussed in Chapter 2. Applying a prototypical approach to the examination of transitivity in the use of ’hb in BH would be expected to show similar patterns to the non-prototypical use of emotions in modern languages (such as English), namely a general mismatch between the principles of prototypical transitivity and the conceptualisation of emotion in language. Accordingly, experiencers of ’hb-events would be expected to have a relatively low degree of volitionality and instigation, but a relatively high degree of affectedness. As was demonstrated in the previous chapters, this is not always the case. The discussion of other emotions in BH in Chapter 3 suggested that ’hb is not alone in this pattern, as volitionality was also found to be a property of the experiencer in the use of other emotions. This suggests that the semantic transitivity of emotion-events in BH (and of ’hb in particular) may be closer to prototypical transitive events than to emotion-events in other languages. The following section is dedicated to the examination of ’hb in light of the ‘maximally distinct arguments hypothesis’. 5.3 ’hb in light of the ‘maximally distinct arguments hypothesis’ The lexeme ’hb occurs in BH in different grammatical constructions, including transitive, in-transitive, negation, imperative, relative clause, etc. In 84% of its occurrences, ’hb is a verb and in the remaining 16% it is a noun. Of the verbal occurrences, 42% appear in transitive clauses, as in (7) where (in (7a)) the direct object is indefinite. 23 (7) a. yāhwəh ’ōhēb ṣaddîqîm ‘Yhwh loves the righteous ones’ (Ps 146:8) b. wayye’ĕhab ya‘ăqōb ’et-rāḥēl ‘Jacob loved Rachel.’ (Gen 29:18) In such constructions, a distinction between the experiencer and the theme exists only in the sense that the two are distinct entites playing different roles in the clause. However, neither the volition and instigation of the experiencer are indicated nor the affectedness of the theme. In this sense, transitivity in (7) is indeed non-prototypical. This fully concurs with Næss’s hy-pothesis according to which the maximal distinction between arguments and their prototypical semantic properties prototypically match the two-arguments clause. I will show that this is not necessarily applicable in BH. First, the verb inflection system of Hebrew enables the affixation

23 A definite direct object in BH may be marked either by the proceeding particle ’et (usually translated as ‘ac-cusative particle’) or a pronominal suffix affixed to ’et or to the verb (see Coleman 2018 on Differential Object Marking (DOM) in BH, and van Loon 2012 on the variational use of ’et).

of arguments to the verb, and thus the existence of two distinct participants may be encoded accordingly, as in (8) where the subject, Cain is encoded by the verb form (i.e., 3rd M singular, indicated by ya-) and the direct object is suffixed to the verb (3rd M singular, indicated by -ēhû). (8) wayyāqom qayin ’el-hebel ’āḥîw wayyahargēhû ‘Cain rose up in to Abel his brother and killed him’ (Gen 4:8) Similar constructions exist also with ’hb, as in (9a), a conjunctive construction where the sub-ject, known from the main clause, is encoded by the verb form (i.e., 3rd M singular) and the direct object is suffixed to the verb (3rd M singular, indicated by -o). The degree of semantic transitivity of this and similar constructions in BH, I argue, does not differ from that of other (transitive) constructions such as (9b–f). (9) a. kî-’ahăbāt napšô ’ăhēbô ‘For he loved him as he loved his own soul’ (1 Sam 20:17) b. watte’ĕhab mîkal bat-šāûl ’et-dāwid ‘Saul’s daughter Michal loved David.’ (1 Sam 18:20) b. ûšṭāḥûm laššemeš wəlayyārēaḥ ûləkōl ṣbā’ haššāmayim ’ăšer ’ăhēbûm ‘They shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the celestial bodies

which they love’ (Jer 8:2) c. lə’aahăbā ’et-yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkā lišmō‘a bəkōlô ûlədābkâ-bo ‘To love Yhwh your god, to obey him [lit. hear in his voice] and to cleave to him’ (Deut 30:20)

d. śin’û-rā‘ wə’ehĕbû ṭôb ‘Hate the evil and love the good!’ (Amos 5:15) e. kî-’ōhēb ’ădāmā hāyâ ‘For he loved the soil’ (2 Chr 26:10) The degree of transitivity of ’hb-events is determined by the semantic properties volitionality, instigation, and affectedness. The first two characterise the experiencer and the latter is a prop-erty of the theme. In BH, these prototypical semantic transitive properties do not necessarily match only with the transitive two arguments-clause, as Næss’s hypothesis predicts. In other words, prototypical transitivity in BH is not necessarily indicated by a match between semantic transitivity (i.e., prototypical properties of participants) and syntactic construction. A compar-ison between (9b) and (9d) illustrates this point. The first is a simple transitive clause that expresses a spontaneous romantic love or attraction experienced by a woman; the latter is an imperative clause that conveys a general prescription, and which thus leaves room for volitional obedience or refusal. While the affectedness of the theme is not indicated for both


Chapter 5 ׀ 94

constructions, the degree of volitionality and the instigation of the experiencer of ’hb is higher in (9d). Further, the individuation of the object in (9b) does not make it more transitive than (9d) with its indefinite direct object. Other types of events in BH show a similar pattern, for example hrg-events ‘kill’ and nkh-events ‘hit’, in which transitivity is often prototypical—at least for hrg-events; events encoded by nkh ‘hit’ may also be non-volitional or non-affecting. A dataset of 100 occurrences of hrg ‘kill’, for example, contains 61% transitive clauses, while volitional, instigating killing-events (with two distinct participants) are also encoded in other constructions. Coleman (2018) examined transitivity alternation of some BH verbs (the occurrence of these verbs in one-argument and two- or more arguments constructions) taking a syntactic perspec-tive with a cognitive linguistic approach. His study shows the relevance and weight of concep-tualisation in the use of verbs and constructions in BH. Coleman (2018: 16) suggests that the prototypical transitive construction (the two-arguments transitive clause) of BH can be associ-ated with a range of senses. The prototypical two-arguments clause does not necessarily encode a highly transitive event, but also serves pragmatic purposes such as emphasis. An example is the use of dwelling verbs of the škn-stem (‘abide’, ‘dwell’), which prototypically occur in con-structions where the location-argument is a prepositional object, preceded by a preposition as in (10). (10) wəhû’ šōkēn bə’ēlōnê mamrē’ ‘And he was dwelling in Eloney Mamre’ (Gen 14:13) The relative common use of škn-verbs in constructions where the location functions as the object of dwelling, i.e. without a preceding preposition, leads Coleman (2018: 152-157) to conclude that this can be considered as a “second norm”. The motivation behind this use, he claims, is pragmatic, namely the increase in the salience of the location and the prominence of the relation between the dweller and its relation to the location in the context, as in (11). (11) kî-yəšārîm yiškənû ’āreṣ ‘For the righteous will dwell (in the) land’ (Prov 2:21) The construction in (11) does not necessarily increase the transitivity of škn, but, according to Coleman, it highlights the permanence of the relationship between the dweller (i.e. the right-eous) and the location (i.e. the land). The alternation between the two types of dwelling-con-structions serves pragmatic purposes based on the contextual conceptualisation of škn. While Coleman’s investigation concentrates on grammatical constructions and their contribu-tion to semantic-pragmatic aspects of verbs, the present discussion deals with the semantic transitivity of ’hb regardless of the grammatical constructions in which it occurs. Nevertheless, Coleman’s study shows that transitivity alternation in BH, indicated in form alternation (i.e. different grammatical constructions), is complex and often deviates from the prototypical tran-sitive scenario of two distinct participants, an effecting agent and an affecting patient. This brings the discussion back to ’hb. ’hb-constructions are inherently non-prototypically transitive, and the degree of their seman-tic transitivity cannot be determined by the presence of the transitive clause, but rather by the

properties of the participants in ’hb-events. The variety of constructions with full distinctness between participants in BH (particularly in transitive concepts such as kill or hit) thus shows that in this language more than one type of clause can encode prototypical transitive events, and hence different construction-types may be defined as a prototypical transitive clause. This does not contradict Næss’s hypothesis, but adjusts it to better describe BH. Prototypical tran-sitivity in BH, accordingly, does not align with cross-linguistic prototypical transitivity, but deviates from it. The deviation is based on a full match between the prototypical semantic properties of participants and the transitive two-arguments clause. Due to the specific character of the corpus, the transitivity of ’hb-events examined here is principally based on the conceptual aspects of this lexeme as reflected in its use. In particular, the contexts in which verbs of ’hb occur provide the conceptions underlying the use of this lexeme. As a consequence, transitivity based on the properties of participants is context-de-pendent and its degree may vary over biblical contexts as well as cultural domains. It is often the broader context, either a narrative, legislation, wisdom, or other text type, from which the conception of transitivity can be inferred rather than each construction on its own. Applying Næss’s three binary properties of participants ([±VOL], [±INST], and [±AFF]) as parameters, while bearing in mind the inherent non-prototypical transitive character of ’hb-events, can yield a more specific and accurate assessment of the transitivity of these events. 5.3.1 Transitivity in the domain of Divinity Since it is the occurrence of volitionality that has led to the examination of transitivity in the first place, this property will be discussed first and is used as the basis of the examination. So far, the volitionality of the experiencer of ’hb was found mainly in the cultural domain of Di-vinity. It was established that in this domain the experiencer (i.e., lover) of ’hb is often to some extent volitional, and the degree of volitionality is higher when the experiencer is God and not human. When the experiencer is human, the degree of volitionality is lower and is driven by commandment. This observation, and the possible existence of instigation and affectedness are further elaborated on the basis of the broader context of the relationship between God and the people. The assumed lower degree of transitivity in the other cultural domains will be subse-quently discussed. The following examples illustrate the volitionality involved in the relationship between God and the people in the cultural domain of Divinity. (12) a. wə‘ō śeh ḥesed la’ălāfîm lə’ōhăbay ûləšōmrê miṣwōtāy

‘But (I) do good [i.e., show goodness/loving-kindness] to thousands, to my lovers [lit. those who love me] and those who keep my commandments.’ (Exod 20:6) b. wətaḥat kî ’āhab ’et-’ăbōtêkā wayyibḥar bəzar‘ô ’aḥărāyw wayyôṣi’ăkā bəpānāyw bəkōḥô haggādōl mimmiṣrāyim

‘And because he loved your fathers, he chose their seeds after them, and took you, in his presence, out of Egypt.’ (Deut 4:37)



constructions, the degree of volitionality and the instigation of the experiencer of ’hb is higher in (9d). Further, the individuation of the object in (9b) does not make it more transitive than (9d) with its indefinite direct object. Other types of events in BH show a similar pattern, for example hrg-events ‘kill’ and nkh-events ‘hit’, in which transitivity is often prototypical—at least for hrg-events; events encoded by nkh ‘hit’ may also be non-volitional or non-affecting. A dataset of 100 occurrences of hrg ‘kill’, for example, contains 61% transitive clauses, while volitional, instigating killing-events (with two distinct participants) are also encoded in other constructions. Coleman (2018) examined transitivity alternation of some BH verbs (the occurrence of these verbs in one-argument and two- or more arguments constructions) taking a syntactic perspec-tive with a cognitive linguistic approach. His study shows the relevance and weight of concep-tualisation in the use of verbs and constructions in BH. Coleman (2018: 16) suggests that the prototypical transitive construction (the two-arguments transitive clause) of BH can be associ-ated with a range of senses. The prototypical two-arguments clause does not necessarily encode a highly transitive event, but also serves pragmatic purposes such as emphasis. An example is the use of dwelling verbs of the škn-stem (‘abide’, ‘dwell’), which prototypically occur in con-structions where the location-argument is a prepositional object, preceded by a preposition as in (10). (10) wəhû’ šōkēn bə’ēlōnê mamrē’ ‘And he was dwelling in Eloney Mamre’ (Gen 14:13) The relative common use of škn-verbs in constructions where the location functions as the object of dwelling, i.e. without a preceding preposition, leads Coleman (2018: 152-157) to conclude that this can be considered as a “second norm”. The motivation behind this use, he claims, is pragmatic, namely the increase in the salience of the location and the prominence of the relation between the dweller and its relation to the location in the context, as in (11). (11) kî-yəšārîm yiškənû ’āreṣ ‘For the righteous will dwell (in the) land’ (Prov 2:21) The construction in (11) does not necessarily increase the transitivity of škn, but, according to Coleman, it highlights the permanence of the relationship between the dweller (i.e. the right-eous) and the location (i.e. the land). The alternation between the two types of dwelling-con-structions serves pragmatic purposes based on the contextual conceptualisation of škn. While Coleman’s investigation concentrates on grammatical constructions and their contribu-tion to semantic-pragmatic aspects of verbs, the present discussion deals with the semantic transitivity of ’hb regardless of the grammatical constructions in which it occurs. Nevertheless, Coleman’s study shows that transitivity alternation in BH, indicated in form alternation (i.e. different grammatical constructions), is complex and often deviates from the prototypical tran-sitive scenario of two distinct participants, an effecting agent and an affecting patient. This brings the discussion back to ’hb. ’hb-constructions are inherently non-prototypically transitive, and the degree of their seman-tic transitivity cannot be determined by the presence of the transitive clause, but rather by the

properties of the participants in ’hb-events. The variety of constructions with full distinctness between participants in BH (particularly in transitive concepts such as kill or hit) thus shows that in this language more than one type of clause can encode prototypical transitive events, and hence different construction-types may be defined as a prototypical transitive clause. This does not contradict Næss’s hypothesis, but adjusts it to better describe BH. Prototypical tran-sitivity in BH, accordingly, does not align with cross-linguistic prototypical transitivity, but deviates from it. The deviation is based on a full match between the prototypical semantic properties of participants and the transitive two-arguments clause. Due to the specific character of the corpus, the transitivity of ’hb-events examined here is principally based on the conceptual aspects of this lexeme as reflected in its use. In particular, the contexts in which verbs of ’hb occur provide the conceptions underlying the use of this lexeme. As a consequence, transitivity based on the properties of participants is context-de-pendent and its degree may vary over biblical contexts as well as cultural domains. It is often the broader context, either a narrative, legislation, wisdom, or other text type, from which the conception of transitivity can be inferred rather than each construction on its own. Applying Næss’s three binary properties of participants ([±VOL], [±INST], and [±AFF]) as parameters, while bearing in mind the inherent non-prototypical transitive character of ’hb-events, can yield a more specific and accurate assessment of the transitivity of these events. 5.3.1 Transitivity in the domain of Divinity Since it is the occurrence of volitionality that has led to the examination of transitivity in the first place, this property will be discussed first and is used as the basis of the examination. So far, the volitionality of the experiencer of ’hb was found mainly in the cultural domain of Di-vinity. It was established that in this domain the experiencer (i.e., lover) of ’hb is often to some extent volitional, and the degree of volitionality is higher when the experiencer is God and not human. When the experiencer is human, the degree of volitionality is lower and is driven by commandment. This observation, and the possible existence of instigation and affectedness are further elaborated on the basis of the broader context of the relationship between God and the people. The assumed lower degree of transitivity in the other cultural domains will be subse-quently discussed. The following examples illustrate the volitionality involved in the relationship between God and the people in the cultural domain of Divinity. (12) a. wə‘ō śeh ḥesed la’ălāfîm lə’ōhăbay ûləšōmrê miṣwōtāy

‘But (I) do good [i.e., show goodness/loving-kindness] to thousands, to my lovers [lit. those who love me] and those who keep my commandments.’ (Exod 20:6) b. wətaḥat kî ’āhab ’et-’ăbōtêkā wayyibḥar bəzar‘ô ’aḥărāyw wayyôṣi’ăkā bəpānāyw bəkōḥô haggādōl mimmiṣrāyim

‘And because he loved your fathers, he chose their seeds after them, and took you, in his presence, out of Egypt.’ (Deut 4:37)


Chapter 5 ׀ 96

c. raq ba’ăbōtêkā ḥāšaq yāhwəh lə’ahăbâ ’ôtām ‘Only your fathers did Yhwh desire, to love them’ (Deut 10:15) d. wə’āhabtā ’ēt yāhwəh ’ălōhêkā bəkŏl-ləbābkā ûbəkŏl-napšəkā ûbəkŏl- mə’ōdēkā

‘You shall love Yhwh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and in all your might’ (Deut 6:5) e. rə’ēh kî-piqqûdêkā ’āhābtî yāhwəh kəḥasdəkā ḥayyēnî ‘See how I love your precepts, Yhwh revive me according to your graciousness’ (Ps 119:159)

In (12a), the first occurrence of ’hb in the context of Divinity, the lexeme expresses humans’ love for God, as part of God’s words told to the people by Moses. Love for God is introduced as worthwhile and rewarded, i.e., lovers of God will gain his loving-kindness. This implies volition based on consideration and decision rather than a spontaneous emotion or a reaction to a stimulus. This first occurrence of ’hb in the domain of Divinity comes after the introduction of God to the people (Exod 20:1–5) as the saviour who freed them from slavery and took them out of Egypt, followed by the prohibition to worship any other god. In (12b), the second oc-currence of ’hb in Divinity, the motivation of God’s good deeds for the people is presented, namely his love for the people’s ancestors. God’s love for the people, not yet expressed by ’hb, appears to be a conscious choice, on the basis of his love for their ancestors. The third occur-rence of ’hb in Divinity, in (12c), emphasises the volitional choice of God to love the people’s ancestors. The fourth occurrence, in (12d), is the first occurrence of the commandment to love God, and in (12e), obedience to this commandment is indirectly realised by loving God’s pre-cepts. These first five occurrences of ’hb in the domain of Divinity outline the relationship encoded by ’hb between God and the people, suggesting that the people’s love for God had to be devel-oped by acknowledging and cherishing the benefits it involves, which are all subject to God’s merits. God’s love for the people, on the other hand, is more assertive and decisive, a commit-ment he took upon himself based on his volitional love for their ancestors. This mutual (but different in nature) love between God and the people is a central theme which repeats itself in different contexts and multiple formulations throughout the texts, and is regarded in the present thesis as semantic asymmetry. In the book of Psalms, ’hb expresses praise for God by stressing his love for the people, the needy ones, justice, and judgement. In addition, ’hb in this book expresses human love for God’s law and commandments, as in (12e). In this example, love for God’s precepts is explicit, meant to indicate the obedience to his commandment, which in turn justifies the promised reward, namely God’s love realised in his goodness. Although the two types of love differ from each other in nature, and God’s love is chronologically (though not textually) the first to occur, both are dependent on one another. God’s love for the people re-quires their love of him, as otherwise it cannot last; the people’s love for God is rewarded, as otherwise it may not last. In both God’s and the people’s love, ’hb seems to have volitional elements that are the result of consideration and decision, rather than a spontaneous reaction to a stimulus.

The observed volitionality and the mutual dependence between the two types of love imply the existence of deeds (or at least conduct) as an element of the meaning of ’hb (more power-fully when the experiencer is God). In particular, God’s love for the people entails concrete actions such as multiplying the people and guaranteeing their fruitful husbandry and herding; the people’s love for God entails obedience to his commandments that is realised through their conduct and by their serving him. As the examples in (13) show, it is often almost impossible to separate ’hb from the related deeds or conduct. (13) a. wa’ăhēbkā ûberakəkā wəhirbekā ûbērak pərî-biṭnəkā ûpərî-’admātekā dəgankā wətîrōškā wəyiṣhārekā šəgar-’ălāpêkā wə‘aštərōt ṣō’neka ‘al hā’ădāmâ ’ăšer- nišba‘ la’ăbōtêkā lātet lāk ‘He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will bless the fruit of your belly

[i.e., womb] and the fruit of your soil, your grain and your wine and your oil, the offspring of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, on the soil that he swore to your fathers to give you.’ (Deut 7:13)

b. kî ’im-šāmōr tišmərûn ’et-kŏl-hammiṣwâ hazzō’t ’ăšer ’ānōkî məṣawweh ’etkēm la‘ăśōtāh lə’ahăbâ ’et-yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkem lāleket bəkōl-dərākāyw ûlədābqâ-bô ‘For if you will keep [i.e., follow/obey] all this commandment, which I command you to do, to love Yhwh your god to walk in all his ways and to cleave to him.’ (Deut 11:22)

The examples in (13) show that the experiencers of ’hb in the domain of Divinity are thus to some extent agentive; their experience involves volitional active deeds or conduct and not merely feelings or inner states. The two types of experiencers, God and the people, differ from each other in their instigation and affectedness. The volitional God-experiencer is also the instigator of the event, acting of his own will and drive. This contrasts events in which the people are in the role of the experi-encer since (regardless of volitionality) these ’hb-events are commanded and thus not instigated by the experiencer. Volitionality and instigation, the essential properties of the agent in proto-typical transitive events (see Table 6.1), do not necessarily coexist in emotive experience and, as made clear here, also do not necessarily coexist in ’hb-events. The property of affectedness constitutes another difference between the two types of ’hb- experiencers. When the experiencer is God, his active conduct and deeds affect the stimulus participant (i.e., the people), which in this cultural domain may, therefore, to some extent re-semble the ‘patient’. The effect of God’s love on the people is the guaranteed normative and peaceful life that is described, for example, in (13a). When the experiencer is the people, on the other hand, it is the experiencer who seems to be most affected. As was argued above, the commanded love of the people for God is directly rewarded with his deeds and conduct, and thus affects them more than it would affect God. This can be illustrated by (14). (14) lə’ahăbâ ’et yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkā lišmō‘a bəqōlô ûlədābqâ-bo kî hû’ ḥayyêkā wə’ōrek

yāmêkā lāšebet ‘al-hā’ădāmâ ’ăšer nišba‘ yāhwəh la’ăbōtêkā lə’abrāhām ləyiṣḥāq ûləya‘ăqōb lātēt lāhem



c. raq ba’ăbōtêkā ḥāšaq yāhwəh lə’ahăbâ ’ôtām ‘Only your fathers did Yhwh desire, to love them’ (Deut 10:15) d. wə’āhabtā ’ēt yāhwəh ’ălōhêkā bəkŏl-ləbābkā ûbəkŏl-napšəkā ûbəkŏl- mə’ōdēkā

‘You shall love Yhwh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and in all your might’ (Deut 6:5) e. rə’ēh kî-piqqûdêkā ’āhābtî yāhwəh kəḥasdəkā ḥayyēnî ‘See how I love your precepts, Yhwh revive me according to your graciousness’ (Ps 119:159)

In (12a), the first occurrence of ’hb in the context of Divinity, the lexeme expresses humans’ love for God, as part of God’s words told to the people by Moses. Love for God is introduced as worthwhile and rewarded, i.e., lovers of God will gain his loving-kindness. This implies volition based on consideration and decision rather than a spontaneous emotion or a reaction to a stimulus. This first occurrence of ’hb in the domain of Divinity comes after the introduction of God to the people (Exod 20:1–5) as the saviour who freed them from slavery and took them out of Egypt, followed by the prohibition to worship any other god. In (12b), the second oc-currence of ’hb in Divinity, the motivation of God’s good deeds for the people is presented, namely his love for the people’s ancestors. God’s love for the people, not yet expressed by ’hb, appears to be a conscious choice, on the basis of his love for their ancestors. The third occur-rence of ’hb in Divinity, in (12c), emphasises the volitional choice of God to love the people’s ancestors. The fourth occurrence, in (12d), is the first occurrence of the commandment to love God, and in (12e), obedience to this commandment is indirectly realised by loving God’s pre-cepts. These first five occurrences of ’hb in the domain of Divinity outline the relationship encoded by ’hb between God and the people, suggesting that the people’s love for God had to be devel-oped by acknowledging and cherishing the benefits it involves, which are all subject to God’s merits. God’s love for the people, on the other hand, is more assertive and decisive, a commit-ment he took upon himself based on his volitional love for their ancestors. This mutual (but different in nature) love between God and the people is a central theme which repeats itself in different contexts and multiple formulations throughout the texts, and is regarded in the present thesis as semantic asymmetry. In the book of Psalms, ’hb expresses praise for God by stressing his love for the people, the needy ones, justice, and judgement. In addition, ’hb in this book expresses human love for God’s law and commandments, as in (12e). In this example, love for God’s precepts is explicit, meant to indicate the obedience to his commandment, which in turn justifies the promised reward, namely God’s love realised in his goodness. Although the two types of love differ from each other in nature, and God’s love is chronologically (though not textually) the first to occur, both are dependent on one another. God’s love for the people re-quires their love of him, as otherwise it cannot last; the people’s love for God is rewarded, as otherwise it may not last. In both God’s and the people’s love, ’hb seems to have volitional elements that are the result of consideration and decision, rather than a spontaneous reaction to a stimulus.

The observed volitionality and the mutual dependence between the two types of love imply the existence of deeds (or at least conduct) as an element of the meaning of ’hb (more power-fully when the experiencer is God). In particular, God’s love for the people entails concrete actions such as multiplying the people and guaranteeing their fruitful husbandry and herding; the people’s love for God entails obedience to his commandments that is realised through their conduct and by their serving him. As the examples in (13) show, it is often almost impossible to separate ’hb from the related deeds or conduct. (13) a. wa’ăhēbkā ûberakəkā wəhirbekā ûbērak pərî-biṭnəkā ûpərî-’admātekā dəgankā wətîrōškā wəyiṣhārekā šəgar-’ălāpêkā wə‘aštərōt ṣō’neka ‘al hā’ădāmâ ’ăšer- nišba‘ la’ăbōtêkā lātet lāk ‘He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will bless the fruit of your belly

[i.e., womb] and the fruit of your soil, your grain and your wine and your oil, the offspring of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, on the soil that he swore to your fathers to give you.’ (Deut 7:13)

b. kî ’im-šāmōr tišmərûn ’et-kŏl-hammiṣwâ hazzō’t ’ăšer ’ānōkî məṣawweh ’etkēm la‘ăśōtāh lə’ahăbâ ’et-yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkem lāleket bəkōl-dərākāyw ûlədābqâ-bô ‘For if you will keep [i.e., follow/obey] all this commandment, which I command you to do, to love Yhwh your god to walk in all his ways and to cleave to him.’ (Deut 11:22)

The examples in (13) show that the experiencers of ’hb in the domain of Divinity are thus to some extent agentive; their experience involves volitional active deeds or conduct and not merely feelings or inner states. The two types of experiencers, God and the people, differ from each other in their instigation and affectedness. The volitional God-experiencer is also the instigator of the event, acting of his own will and drive. This contrasts events in which the people are in the role of the experi-encer since (regardless of volitionality) these ’hb-events are commanded and thus not instigated by the experiencer. Volitionality and instigation, the essential properties of the agent in proto-typical transitive events (see Table 6.1), do not necessarily coexist in emotive experience and, as made clear here, also do not necessarily coexist in ’hb-events. The property of affectedness constitutes another difference between the two types of ’hb- experiencers. When the experiencer is God, his active conduct and deeds affect the stimulus participant (i.e., the people), which in this cultural domain may, therefore, to some extent re-semble the ‘patient’. The effect of God’s love on the people is the guaranteed normative and peaceful life that is described, for example, in (13a). When the experiencer is the people, on the other hand, it is the experiencer who seems to be most affected. As was argued above, the commanded love of the people for God is directly rewarded with his deeds and conduct, and thus affects them more than it would affect God. This can be illustrated by (14). (14) lə’ahăbâ ’et yāhwəh ’ĕlōhêkā lišmō‘a bəqōlô ûlədābqâ-bo kî hû’ ḥayyêkā wə’ōrek

yāmêkā lāšebet ‘al-hā’ădāmâ ’ăšer nišba‘ yāhwəh la’ăbōtêkā lə’abrāhām ləyiṣḥāq ûləya‘ăqōb lātēt lāhem


Chapter 5 ׀ 98

‘To love Yhwh, your god, to obey (lit. hear in) his voice and to cleave to him, for he is your life and the length of your days, dwelling on the soil that Yhwh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give it them.’ (Deut 30:20)

Deut (30:20) suggests that the stimulus (i.e., God) is the source of affectedness in the experi-encer (i.e., the people). As was argued above, however, the mutual dependence in the relation-ship that ’hb encodes also entails some affectedness in the stimulus, as his love and the corre-sponded deeds are driven by the experiencer’s love. It thus seems possible to specify two different degrees of transitivity in the domain of Di-vinity, based on the identity of the experiencer. The first, with God in the role of the experi-encer, is more similar to Næss’s maximally distinct participants (the prototypical transitive model in Table 5.1), while the other one further deviates therefrom with the affectedness of the experiencer. Table 5.2 presents the two according to Næss’s criteria.

Experiencer = God Experiencer Stimulus Volitionality + - Instigation + - Affectedness - (+)

Experiencer = people Experiencer Stimulus Volitionality + - Instigation - - Affectedness + (+) Table 5.2: Properties of experiencer and stimulus of ’hb-events in the

cultural domain of Divinity (parentheses indicate indirectness; boldface (+) indicates a stronger degree)

It is clear that neither type of ’hb-events are prototypically transitive for two main reasons. First, the two deviate from Næss’s maximal distinctness model in the participant roles; the participants of ’hb-events are the experiencer and the stimulus and not the prototypical agent and the patient. In spite of the observed activeness of the experiencer (especially when it is God) and the possible affectedness in the stimulus, these participants cannot be considered as agent and patient, since the activeness and affectedness are somewhat indirect and thus their degree is not as high as it is in prototypical transitive events such as physical actions. Moreover, the affectedness of the stimulus when the experiencer is God is more clearly indicated than when the experiencer is the people. The indirectness and degree of affectedness are indicated by the parentheses in Table 5.2. The second reason for the deviation from prototypical transitive events is related to those in which the people is an affected experiencer. Affected experiencer participants are typical of emotion-events, since they undergo the experience. This is perhaps more intuitively perceived in events such as fear, sadness, amusement, or irritation, than in love/liking-events, where the emotion is clearly directed toward the stimulus. Nevertheless, regardless of the directed emo-tion, the stimulus of love/liking is the very cause of the experience and affectedness in the

experiencer is, therefore, more likely than in the stimulus. This makes emotion-events non-prototypically transitive, as was explained in 5.2.24 To summarise, ’hb-events in the domain of Divinity can be categorised into two main cate-gories based on the identity of the experiencer, i.e., God or the people. The two differ from each other in their degree of transitivity, with a higher degree present in the former. Neither type is prototypical (maximally transitive), and they also deviate from the generally low-tran-sitive emotion-events due to the volitionality and instigation of the experiencer (in the God-experiencer category) and the affectedness of the stimulus. In the following section, the transi-tivity of ’hb-events in other cultural domains is discussed. 5.3.2 Transitivity regardless of Divinity In cultural domains other than Divinity, the degree of transitivity is also based on the occur-rence of volitionality in ’hb-events. Particularly in these domains volitionality is infrequent or may be more obscure. The most spontaneous, non-volitional, and non-intentional expression of ’hb with two human participants occurs within the domains of Romance, Kinship, and Adul-tery. In Romance, ’hb has a low degree of volitionality, it denotes a spontaneous experience, and it also denotes a bidirectional romantic and erotic love between men and women. This bidirectionality never occurs simultaneously with the same participants (i.e. the experiencer is either a woman or a man), but both genders may be the experiencer. This contrasts with Adul-tery and Kinship, in which only men, husbands, and parents occur in the role of the experiencer. The occurrences of ’hb in all three of these domains indicate spontaneous reactions to stimuli (i.e., another human individual), without an explicit account of affectedness in the stimuli. This also implies the absence of instigation in the experiencer; the ’hb-event is evoked by the stim-ulus, but the stimulus is not further involved. Table 5.3 presents the participants’ properties in the domains of Romance, Kinship, and Adultery.

Table 5.3: Properties of experiencer and stimulus of ’hb-events in the

cultural domains of Romance, Kinship, and Adultery Romantic-erotic and kinship-related love-events expressed by ’hb can be considered as the least transitive of all ’hb-events involving two human participants (i.e., ’hb also encodes in-transitive events with an experiencer and no stimulus, as in Prov 17:17: bəkŏl ‘ēt ’ōhēb hārē‘a ‘A friend loves at any time’). A similar observation, although not absolute, can be made about the majority of ’hb-events in the rest of the domains, either with human or inanimate stimuli (examples of the latter include sleep, money, wine, oil, and morality). As can be seen in (15), however, some degree of volition does infrequently occur in these domains as well (here in the domains of Politics and Inanimate Abstract Object respectively). 24 See Næss (2007: 51–84) on affected agents and their non-prototypical transitivity.

Experiencer Stimulus Volitionality - - Instigation - - Affectedness + -



‘To love Yhwh, your god, to obey (lit. hear in) his voice and to cleave to him, for he is your life and the length of your days, dwelling on the soil that Yhwh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give it them.’ (Deut 30:20)

Deut (30:20) suggests that the stimulus (i.e., God) is the source of affectedness in the experi-encer (i.e., the people). As was argued above, however, the mutual dependence in the relation-ship that ’hb encodes also entails some affectedness in the stimulus, as his love and the corre-sponded deeds are driven by the experiencer’s love. It thus seems possible to specify two different degrees of transitivity in the domain of Di-vinity, based on the identity of the experiencer. The first, with God in the role of the experi-encer, is more similar to Næss’s maximally distinct participants (the prototypical transitive model in Table 5.1), while the other one further deviates therefrom with the affectedness of the experiencer. Table 5.2 presents the two according to Næss’s criteria.

Experiencer = God Experiencer Stimulus Volitionality + - Instigation + - Affectedness - (+)

Experiencer = people Experiencer Stimulus Volitionality + - Instigation - - Affectedness + (+) Table 5.2: Properties of experiencer and stimulus of ’hb-events in the

cultural domain of Divinity (parentheses indicate indirectness; boldface (+) indicates a stronger degree)

It is clear that neither type of ’hb-events are prototypically transitive for two main reasons. First, the two deviate from Næss’s maximal distinctness model in the participant roles; the participants of ’hb-events are the experiencer and the stimulus and not the prototypical agent and the patient. In spite of the observed activeness of the experiencer (especially when it is God) and the possible affectedness in the stimulus, these participants cannot be considered as agent and patient, since the activeness and affectedness are somewhat indirect and thus their degree is not as high as it is in prototypical transitive events such as physical actions. Moreover, the affectedness of the stimulus when the experiencer is God is more clearly indicated than when the experiencer is the people. The indirectness and degree of affectedness are indicated by the parentheses in Table 5.2. The second reason for the deviation from prototypical transitive events is related to those in which the people is an affected experiencer. Affected experiencer participants are typical of emotion-events, since they undergo the experience. This is perhaps more intuitively perceived in events such as fear, sadness, amusement, or irritation, than in love/liking-events, where the emotion is clearly directed toward the stimulus. Nevertheless, regardless of the directed emo-tion, the stimulus of love/liking is the very cause of the experience and affectedness in the

experiencer is, therefore, more likely than in the stimulus. This makes emotion-events non-prototypically transitive, as was explained in 5.2.24 To summarise, ’hb-events in the domain of Divinity can be categorised into two main cate-gories based on the identity of the experiencer, i.e., God or the people. The two differ from each other in their degree of transitivity, with a higher degree present in the former. Neither type is prototypical (maximally transitive), and they also deviate from the generally low-tran-sitive emotion-events due to the volitionality and instigation of the experiencer (in the God-experiencer category) and the affectedness of the stimulus. In the following section, the transi-tivity of ’hb-events in other cultural domains is discussed. 5.3.2 Transitivity regardless of Divinity In cultural domains other than Divinity, the degree of transitivity is also based on the occur-rence of volitionality in ’hb-events. Particularly in these domains volitionality is infrequent or may be more obscure. The most spontaneous, non-volitional, and non-intentional expression of ’hb with two human participants occurs within the domains of Romance, Kinship, and Adul-tery. In Romance, ’hb has a low degree of volitionality, it denotes a spontaneous experience, and it also denotes a bidirectional romantic and erotic love between men and women. This bidirectionality never occurs simultaneously with the same participants (i.e. the experiencer is either a woman or a man), but both genders may be the experiencer. This contrasts with Adul-tery and Kinship, in which only men, husbands, and parents occur in the role of the experiencer. The occurrences of ’hb in all three of these domains indicate spontaneous reactions to stimuli (i.e., another human individual), without an explicit account of affectedness in the stimuli. This also implies the absence of instigation in the experiencer; the ’hb-event is evoked by the stim-ulus, but the stimulus is not further involved. Table 5.3 presents the participants’ properties in the domains of Romance, Kinship, and Adultery.

Table 5.3: Properties of experiencer and stimulus of ’hb-events in the

cultural domains of Romance, Kinship, and Adultery Romantic-erotic and kinship-related love-events expressed by ’hb can be considered as the least transitive of all ’hb-events involving two human participants (i.e., ’hb also encodes in-transitive events with an experiencer and no stimulus, as in Prov 17:17: bəkŏl ‘ēt ’ōhēb hārē‘a ‘A friend loves at any time’). A similar observation, although not absolute, can be made about the majority of ’hb-events in the rest of the domains, either with human or inanimate stimuli (examples of the latter include sleep, money, wine, oil, and morality). As can be seen in (15), however, some degree of volition does infrequently occur in these domains as well (here in the domains of Politics and Inanimate Abstract Object respectively). 24 See Næss (2007: 51–84) on affected agents and their non-prototypical transitivity.

Experiencer Stimulus Volitionality - - Instigation - - Affectedness + -


Chapter 5 ׀ 100

(15) a. hălārāšā‘ la‘əzōr ûləśōn’ê yāhwəh te’ĕhāb ‘Should you help the wicked and love those who hate Yhwh?’ (2 Chr 19:2) b. ’ănî ’ōhăbay ’ehāb ‘I love those who love me.’ (Prov 8:17) In (15a), the speaker reproofs Jehoshaphat, king of Judah for his involvement in the war against Aram, in which Ahab, king of Israel received fatal injuries. The speaker’s words imply the volitional sympathy of Jehoshaphat for the enemy Aram (i.e., ‘those who hate God’). In (15b), the speaker is personified wisdom, for which its love of humans is conditioned to their love of wisdom, and hence not spontaneous but may be volitional to some extent. In both occurrences, the experiencer is also instigating the event, but an affectedness in the stimulus is not explicitly indicated (although a possible affectedness may be implied), similar to the reward in the do-main of Divinity discussed above. The commanded use of ’hb occurs several times expressing the prescription of laws, such as in the domains of Politics (16a) and Inanimate Abstract Object (16b). In the latter, love for wisdom (a feminine gendered noun) is prescribed as a condition of wisdom’s protection. (16) a. wa’ăhabtēm ’et-haggēr kî-gērîm hĕyîtem bə’ereṣ miṣrāyim ‘Love the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt’ (Deut 10:19)

b. ’ĕhābehā wətiṣṣrekkā ‘Love her, and she will guard you.’ (Prov 4:6)

As in the domain of Divinity, the commanded occurrences of ’hb in other domains imply some degree of volitionality based on the experiencer’s consideration and decision. However, the experiencers of commanded ’hb-events are non-instigating, affected participants. In contrast to direct commandments, commandments expressed by the negation-clause or general prescriptions and maxims indicate spontaneity and a relatively low degree of volition-ality. Such ’hb-events concern inanimate stimuli (17a) or humans with a specific status (17b). (17) a. ’al-te’ĕhab šēnâ pen-tiwwārēš ‘Do not love sleep, lest you will become poor.’ (Prov 20:13) b. ’îš maḥsôr ’ōhēb śimḥâ ’ōhēb yayin-wāšemen lō’ yă‘ăšîr ‘He who loves joy [i.e., pleasure] will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil

will not be rich.’ (Prov 21:17) The commandment in (17a) implies that sleeping during the day (i.e., instead of working) may be a spontaneous desirable habit, but it has negative consequences for the wellbeing of humans. Whereas the commandments to love God and the foreigner/fellow human entails incentive or encouragement to do something that is not necessarily obvious or natural, the negation in (17a) implies a more natural affinity with sleep over day. Its negative connotation requires the use of negation. The example in (17b) indicates a similar natural tendency (i.e., affinity with material

pleasure), which may also have negative consequences for the wellbeing of humans. In this case the affinity is not negated, but its consequences are instead emphasized. To summarise, in contrast to the domain of Divinity, where ’hb-events clearly indicate some degree of transitivity, in the majority of occurrences in other domains ’hb-events are prototypi-cally spontaneous reactions to stimuli. This is strongly indicated in the interpersonal domains of Romance, Kinship, and Adultery, but also in the occurrences of ’hb with inanimate (concrete and abstract) stimuli. Occurrences of ’hb-events with higher degrees of volitionality are non-prototypical in these domains. 5.4 Summary and conclusions The degree of the transitivity of ’hb-events examined in the present chapter is based on the degree of volitionality that was observed in these events. Following Næss’s (2007) prototypical model of maximally distinct agent and patient while bearing in mind the non-prototypically transitive character of ’hb-events, the present examination shows that, nevertheless, transitivity does exist to some extent in these events. The cultural domain of Divinity, it was shown, is the locus of ’hb-events with the highest degree of transitivity and it differs significantly from all the other domains. Moreover, within Divinity a higher degree of transitivity is found when the experiencer is God than when the experiencer is the people. Among the interpersonal domains, ’hb-events in Romance, Kinship, and Adultery are the least transitive. The cultural domain of Divinity, it thus seems, has a particular importance or weight in the degree of transitivity of ’hb-events. A general conclusion that can be drawn from these findings is that the understanding of transitive events as such, the relative degree of transitivity these events have, and the conse-quent grammatical encoding of transitivity are all based on an underlying conceptualisation of these events that can be translated to scenarios with a different number of participants. The variety of grammatical constructions that can be used to encode transitive events of different degrees in BH enables a broader scope of examination. This is commensurate with Coleman (2018) who attributed a central importance to the conceptual ground involved in transitivity alternation in BH (see 5.3 above). The findings of the present chapter lead to the following more specific conclusions:

(i) ’hb-events are not equally (in)transitive; the degree of transitivity of ’hb-events is driven by the specific contexts and cultural domains in which they occur.

(ii) The difference in transitivity between cultural domains reflects the polysemy of this lexeme in BH; ’hb does not merely encode a spontaneous affection or affinity/at-traction, but also (volitional) conduct and deeds.

(iii) The more transitive ’hb-events are (as in the domain of Divinity), the more they deviate from the general non-causative low-transitive emotion-events and come closer to prototypical transitive events.

(iv) The degree of transitivity in ’hb-events is not necessarily indicated by a semantic-syntactic match; relatively higher transitive events with volitional, instigating par-ticipants are not necessarily encoded by the transitive clause: [X ’hb (/’hb X) (ACC)



(15) a. hălārāšā‘ la‘əzōr ûləśōn’ê yāhwəh te’ĕhāb ‘Should you help the wicked and love those who hate Yhwh?’ (2 Chr 19:2) b. ’ănî ’ōhăbay ’ehāb ‘I love those who love me.’ (Prov 8:17) In (15a), the speaker reproofs Jehoshaphat, king of Judah for his involvement in the war against Aram, in which Ahab, king of Israel received fatal injuries. The speaker’s words imply the volitional sympathy of Jehoshaphat for the enemy Aram (i.e., ‘those who hate God’). In (15b), the speaker is personified wisdom, for which its love of humans is conditioned to their love of wisdom, and hence not spontaneous but may be volitional to some extent. In both occurrences, the experiencer is also instigating the event, but an affectedness in the stimulus is not explicitly indicated (although a possible affectedness may be implied), similar to the reward in the do-main of Divinity discussed above. The commanded use of ’hb occurs several times expressing the prescription of laws, such as in the domains of Politics (16a) and Inanimate Abstract Object (16b). In the latter, love for wisdom (a feminine gendered noun) is prescribed as a condition of wisdom’s protection. (16) a. wa’ăhabtēm ’et-haggēr kî-gērîm hĕyîtem bə’ereṣ miṣrāyim ‘Love the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt’ (Deut 10:19)

b. ’ĕhābehā wətiṣṣrekkā ‘Love her, and she will guard you.’ (Prov 4:6)

As in the domain of Divinity, the commanded occurrences of ’hb in other domains imply some degree of volitionality based on the experiencer’s consideration and decision. However, the experiencers of commanded ’hb-events are non-instigating, affected participants. In contrast to direct commandments, commandments expressed by the negation-clause or general prescriptions and maxims indicate spontaneity and a relatively low degree of volition-ality. Such ’hb-events concern inanimate stimuli (17a) or humans with a specific status (17b). (17) a. ’al-te’ĕhab šēnâ pen-tiwwārēš ‘Do not love sleep, lest you will become poor.’ (Prov 20:13) b. ’îš maḥsôr ’ōhēb śimḥâ ’ōhēb yayin-wāšemen lō’ yă‘ăšîr ‘He who loves joy [i.e., pleasure] will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil

will not be rich.’ (Prov 21:17) The commandment in (17a) implies that sleeping during the day (i.e., instead of working) may be a spontaneous desirable habit, but it has negative consequences for the wellbeing of humans. Whereas the commandments to love God and the foreigner/fellow human entails incentive or encouragement to do something that is not necessarily obvious or natural, the negation in (17a) implies a more natural affinity with sleep over day. Its negative connotation requires the use of negation. The example in (17b) indicates a similar natural tendency (i.e., affinity with material

pleasure), which may also have negative consequences for the wellbeing of humans. In this case the affinity is not negated, but its consequences are instead emphasized. To summarise, in contrast to the domain of Divinity, where ’hb-events clearly indicate some degree of transitivity, in the majority of occurrences in other domains ’hb-events are prototypi-cally spontaneous reactions to stimuli. This is strongly indicated in the interpersonal domains of Romance, Kinship, and Adultery, but also in the occurrences of ’hb with inanimate (concrete and abstract) stimuli. Occurrences of ’hb-events with higher degrees of volitionality are non-prototypical in these domains. 5.4 Summary and conclusions The degree of the transitivity of ’hb-events examined in the present chapter is based on the degree of volitionality that was observed in these events. Following Næss’s (2007) prototypical model of maximally distinct agent and patient while bearing in mind the non-prototypically transitive character of ’hb-events, the present examination shows that, nevertheless, transitivity does exist to some extent in these events. The cultural domain of Divinity, it was shown, is the locus of ’hb-events with the highest degree of transitivity and it differs significantly from all the other domains. Moreover, within Divinity a higher degree of transitivity is found when the experiencer is God than when the experiencer is the people. Among the interpersonal domains, ’hb-events in Romance, Kinship, and Adultery are the least transitive. The cultural domain of Divinity, it thus seems, has a particular importance or weight in the degree of transitivity of ’hb-events. A general conclusion that can be drawn from these findings is that the understanding of transitive events as such, the relative degree of transitivity these events have, and the conse-quent grammatical encoding of transitivity are all based on an underlying conceptualisation of these events that can be translated to scenarios with a different number of participants. The variety of grammatical constructions that can be used to encode transitive events of different degrees in BH enables a broader scope of examination. This is commensurate with Coleman (2018) who attributed a central importance to the conceptual ground involved in transitivity alternation in BH (see 5.3 above). The findings of the present chapter lead to the following more specific conclusions:

(i) ’hb-events are not equally (in)transitive; the degree of transitivity of ’hb-events is driven by the specific contexts and cultural domains in which they occur.

(ii) The difference in transitivity between cultural domains reflects the polysemy of this lexeme in BH; ’hb does not merely encode a spontaneous affection or affinity/at-traction, but also (volitional) conduct and deeds.

(iii) The more transitive ’hb-events are (as in the domain of Divinity), the more they deviate from the general non-causative low-transitive emotion-events and come closer to prototypical transitive events.

(iv) The degree of transitivity in ’hb-events is not necessarily indicated by a semantic-syntactic match; relatively higher transitive events with volitional, instigating par-ticipants are not necessarily encoded by the transitive clause: [X ’hb (/’hb X) (ACC)


Chapter 5 ׀ 102

Y]. On the other hand, this construction does not necessarily indicate a high degree of transitivity.

(v) Transitivity as a linguistic phenomenon may be also culturally-driven; regardless of the general categorical conceptualisation of events (such as physical action, sen-sory perception, cognition, emotion, etc.), cultural conceptions may influence the degree of transitivity; events that may be conceptualised as transitive in one culture and language are not necessarily transitive in another.

The findings in the present chapter raise an important question regarding the role of Divinity as a cultural domain in the degree of the transitivity of ’hb and its related polysemy. In partic-ular, it is necessary to explore what makes Divinity, and not (or, at least, to a lesser extent) the other domains, significant for the encoding of (volitional) conduct and deeds (and hence tran-sitivity) in such ’hb-events. Another question that requires some further thought concerns the relation between the differences in the degree of transitivity within the domain of Divinity along with the asymmetry in meaning that was observed in this domain in the previous chapter. These questions are further elaborated in the following chapter.

Chapter 6. The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb 6.1 Introduction The strong association between the use of ’hb and socialness is indicated with the following findings: i. a general hierarchical use according to which the lover has a higher social status than the beloved. This is mostly observed with ii. a prototypical gender-hierarchy in the use of ’hb in the cultural domains of Kinship and Adultery, iii. a semantic asymmetry in the cultural domain of Divinity, that entails volitionality, and iv. the use of ’hb with inanimate objects has a prescriptive character that is clearly related to an ideal, moralistic social order. The observed volitionality entails transitivity to some extent in the use of ’hb; mostly in the domain of Di-vinity where both the divine and human lovers involve varying degrees of semantic transitivity, but also to a lesser degree in the other domains. This transitivity of ’hb also contributes to its socialness in that the agentive properties of the lover in the different occurrences of ’hb are all related to social interactions and conduct, either among humans or between God and humans. The present chapter is a discussion on the cognitive and cultural motivations underlying the socialness of ’hb and, in particular, the main patterns that characterise its use. The use of ’hb is examined here in light of the sociocultural systems of ancient Israel (especially the kinship system) as a conceptual source. This chapter further shows how the sociocultural background and cognitive (linguistic) processes together constitute the multidimensional use of ’hb and further elucidate its social character. 6.2 The conceptual link between ’hb and the ancient Israelite culture 6.2.1 The kinship system of ancient Israel The ancient Israelite culture, part of the broader ancient Near Eastern culture, is generally seen as a patriarchal system combined with a hierarchical culture of kingships or chiefdoms, with a ‘divine-patron’ as the superior ruler at the top of the hierarchy.25 In this culture, kinship, poli-tics, and religion were interwoven. Noll (2013) noted that the social structure of the ancient Near East was characterised by a ‘patron-client’ relationship at a number of different levels, from the household to kingship and religion. As the foundational (and most important) com-ponent of the ancient Israelite society, the kinship system remained constant throughout the different historical eras. It will be shown throughout this chapter that kinship was not only the

25 According to Noll (2013), the alternation of terms for political system—e.g. chiefdom, tribal kingdom, city-state, monarchic kingdom centred around the capitals of Samaria (northern kingdom of Israel) and Jerusalem (southern kingdom or Judah)—is based on the differences in size and the haziness of physical borders. Doob Sakenfeld (1978) noted that kingship became the most prominent, as well as longest-lived system from around 1000 BCR (the era of Saul, David, and Solomon in the biblical texts). This system, as Israelite and Judean auton-omies, ended four centuries later around 586 BCE after the destruction of Jerusalen and the beginning of the Babylonian exile. In the post-exilic period, Yehud (Judah) and Samaria were provinces of the Persian and Helin-istic empires. In the pre-monarchic period, ancient Israelite society consisted of tribes governed by chiefs, judges, and military leaders (see also Cross 1998; Lehmann 2004).


Y]. On the other hand, this construction does not necessarily indicate a high degree of transitivity.

(v) Transitivity as a linguistic phenomenon may be also culturally-driven; regardless of the general categorical conceptualisation of events (such as physical action, sen-sory perception, cognition, emotion, etc.), cultural conceptions may influence the degree of transitivity; events that may be conceptualised as transitive in one culture and language are not necessarily transitive in another.

The findings in the present chapter raise an important question regarding the role of Divinity as a cultural domain in the degree of the transitivity of ’hb and its related polysemy. In partic-ular, it is necessary to explore what makes Divinity, and not (or, at least, to a lesser extent) the other domains, significant for the encoding of (volitional) conduct and deeds (and hence tran-sitivity) in such ’hb-events. Another question that requires some further thought concerns the relation between the differences in the degree of transitivity within the domain of Divinity along with the asymmetry in meaning that was observed in this domain in the previous chapter. These questions are further elaborated in the following chapter.

Chapter 6. The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb 6.1 Introduction The strong association between the use of ’hb and socialness is indicated with the following findings: i. a general hierarchical use according to which the lover has a higher social status than the beloved. This is mostly observed with ii. a prototypical gender-hierarchy in the use of ’hb in the cultural domains of Kinship and Adultery, iii. a semantic asymmetry in the cultural domain of Divinity, that entails volitionality, and iv. the use of ’hb with inanimate objects has a prescriptive character that is clearly related to an ideal, moralistic social order. The observed volitionality entails transitivity to some extent in the use of ’hb; mostly in the domain of Di-vinity where both the divine and human lovers involve varying degrees of semantic transitivity, but also to a lesser degree in the other domains. This transitivity of ’hb also contributes to its socialness in that the agentive properties of the lover in the different occurrences of ’hb are all related to social interactions and conduct, either among humans or between God and humans. The present chapter is a discussion on the cognitive and cultural motivations underlying the socialness of ’hb and, in particular, the main patterns that characterise its use. The use of ’hb is examined here in light of the sociocultural systems of ancient Israel (especially the kinship system) as a conceptual source. This chapter further shows how the sociocultural background and cognitive (linguistic) processes together constitute the multidimensional use of ’hb and further elucidate its social character. 6.2 The conceptual link between ’hb and the ancient Israelite culture 6.2.1 The kinship system of ancient Israel The ancient Israelite culture, part of the broader ancient Near Eastern culture, is generally seen as a patriarchal system combined with a hierarchical culture of kingships or chiefdoms, with a ‘divine-patron’ as the superior ruler at the top of the hierarchy.25 In this culture, kinship, poli-tics, and religion were interwoven. Noll (2013) noted that the social structure of the ancient Near East was characterised by a ‘patron-client’ relationship at a number of different levels, from the household to kingship and religion. As the foundational (and most important) com-ponent of the ancient Israelite society, the kinship system remained constant throughout the different historical eras. It will be shown throughout this chapter that kinship was not only the

25 According to Noll (2013), the alternation of terms for political system—e.g. chiefdom, tribal kingdom, city-state, monarchic kingdom centred around the capitals of Samaria (northern kingdom of Israel) and Jerusalem (southern kingdom or Judah)—is based on the differences in size and the haziness of physical borders. Doob Sakenfeld (1978) noted that kingship became the most prominent, as well as longest-lived system from around 1000 BCR (the era of Saul, David, and Solomon in the biblical texts). This system, as Israelite and Judean auton-omies, ended four centuries later around 586 BCE after the destruction of Jerusalen and the beginning of the Babylonian exile. In the post-exilic period, Yehud (Judah) and Samaria were provinces of the Persian and Helin-istic empires. In the pre-monarchic period, ancient Israelite society consisted of tribes governed by chiefs, judges, and military leaders (see also Cross 1998; Lehmann 2004).


Chapter 6 ׀ 104

foundation of this society, but it also was the conceptual model for other social systems in BH. Of particular importance in the kinship system of ancient Israel was the notion of bêt ’āb ‘extended family’ (lit. ‘house of the father’). A bêt ’āb consisted of the oldest man, father or ancestor (from which the term is derived), his wife (or wives), and their male children with their wives and children. Each bêt ’āb thus included one or more smaller units, based upon the number of wives, and each of them dwelled within their own house. According to Noll (2013), a group of related bātêy ’āb (plural of bêt ’āb), four to six in number, together constituted a mišpāḥā ‘clan’, which was also the smallest village type, or a part of larger villages and towns. Each mišpāḥā owned the land on which it dwelled; the head of the clan was the one who made decisions concerning the division of the land amongst the male clan-members, as women were not entitled to inherit or own lands. Figure 6.1 shows a schematic structure of the kinship sys-tem, based on Noll (2013).

Figure 6.1: Schematic presentation of the kinship structure in ancient Israel, based on Noll (2013) (The figure does not indicate the possible

number of clans, extended and nuclear families.) Zevit (2014: 293) emphasised the significance of the bêt ’āb as follows:

It is there that the Israelite family is to be sought because it provided the network of overlapping relationships attached to rights and obligations that protected indi-viduals and determined their status. […] The bêt ’āb, as a constituent part of the clan, defined individuals and nuclear groups, providing them with a socio-religio-economic identity. Its leaders bore responsibility for conserving order in all these spheres.

Intermediate/large village

mišpāḥâ ‘clan’/ smallest village type

bêt ’āb

nuclear family

The bêt ’āb can thus be seen as an initial type of ancient Israelite society. It provided the most basic needs and protection for the family members, as well as the necessary relationships out-side the immediate kinship. The patriarchal kin system entailed a clear distinction between the roles of men and women. Women were by all means dependent on men who could have a number of wives (dependent upon their economic capability of feeding their wives and maintaining the bêt ’āb). Young girls lived in their native bêt ’āb only until they married, at which point they were transferred to the families of their husbands’ fathers, usually shortly after reaching puberty. In her study of kin-ship based on maternal relations, Chapman (2016) contributed a significant dimension to the structure and the functions of the bêt ’āb. Drawing on a wide range of texts, she convincingly showed the importance of the role of the mother (for each of the wives) in a bêt ’āb, namely that it entails the physical existence and emotive validity of a ‘house of the mother’ (or multiple houses) within a bêt ’āb. The ‘house of the mother’ included the wife and her children in addi-tion to her maid with her own children. This increased the complexity of the bêt ’āb, both in the number of subunits it included and in the constructed hierarchy, which was based on the identity of the mother (i.e., a wife or a maid).

Figure 6.2: Schematic presentation of the bêt ’āb with its subunits, ‘the house of the mother’

and the house of maid, based on Chapman (2016: 23) (The number of subunits may be one or more.)

The ‘nuclear family’ in Figure 6.1, can accordingly be replaced by the ‘house of the mother’ (Figure 6.2). Altogether, the bêt ’āb consisted of much more than kin relatives; slaves and other employees, such as shepherds, maids, or wet nurses were part of it as well (see Noll 2013). This kinship system, and in particular the marriage institution as the foundation of the bêt

bêt ’āb

house of wife

(mother)

house of wife

(mother)

house of maid

house of maid


The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb 105 ׀

foundation of this society, but it also was the conceptual model for other social systems in BH. Of particular importance in the kinship system of ancient Israel was the notion of bêt ’āb ‘extended family’ (lit. ‘house of the father’). A bêt ’āb consisted of the oldest man, father or ancestor (from which the term is derived), his wife (or wives), and their male children with their wives and children. Each bêt ’āb thus included one or more smaller units, based upon the number of wives, and each of them dwelled within their own house. According to Noll (2013), a group of related bātêy ’āb (plural of bêt ’āb), four to six in number, together constituted a mišpāḥā ‘clan’, which was also the smallest village type, or a part of larger villages and towns. Each mišpāḥā owned the land on which it dwelled; the head of the clan was the one who made decisions concerning the division of the land amongst the male clan-members, as women were not entitled to inherit or own lands. Figure 6.1 shows a schematic structure of the kinship sys-tem, based on Noll (2013).

Figure 6.1: Schematic presentation of the kinship structure in ancient Israel, based on Noll (2013) (The figure does not indicate the possible

number of clans, extended and nuclear families.) Zevit (2014: 293) emphasised the significance of the bêt ’āb as follows:

It is there that the Israelite family is to be sought because it provided the network of overlapping relationships attached to rights and obligations that protected indi-viduals and determined their status. […] The bêt ’āb, as a constituent part of the clan, defined individuals and nuclear groups, providing them with a socio-religio-economic identity. Its leaders bore responsibility for conserving order in all these spheres.

Intermediate/large village

mišpāḥâ ‘clan’/ smallest village type

bêt ’āb

nuclear family

The bêt ’āb can thus be seen as an initial type of ancient Israelite society. It provided the most basic needs and protection for the family members, as well as the necessary relationships out-side the immediate kinship. The patriarchal kin system entailed a clear distinction between the roles of men and women. Women were by all means dependent on men who could have a number of wives (dependent upon their economic capability of feeding their wives and maintaining the bêt ’āb). Young girls lived in their native bêt ’āb only until they married, at which point they were transferred to the families of their husbands’ fathers, usually shortly after reaching puberty. In her study of kin-ship based on maternal relations, Chapman (2016) contributed a significant dimension to the structure and the functions of the bêt ’āb. Drawing on a wide range of texts, she convincingly showed the importance of the role of the mother (for each of the wives) in a bêt ’āb, namely that it entails the physical existence and emotive validity of a ‘house of the mother’ (or multiple houses) within a bêt ’āb. The ‘house of the mother’ included the wife and her children in addi-tion to her maid with her own children. This increased the complexity of the bêt ’āb, both in the number of subunits it included and in the constructed hierarchy, which was based on the identity of the mother (i.e., a wife or a maid).

Figure 6.2: Schematic presentation of the bêt ’āb with its subunits, ‘the house of the mother’

and the house of maid, based on Chapman (2016: 23) (The number of subunits may be one or more.)

The ‘nuclear family’ in Figure 6.1, can accordingly be replaced by the ‘house of the mother’ (Figure 6.2). Altogether, the bêt ’āb consisted of much more than kin relatives; slaves and other employees, such as shepherds, maids, or wet nurses were part of it as well (see Noll 2013). This kinship system, and in particular the marriage institution as the foundation of the bêt

bêt ’āb

house of wife

(mother)

house of wife

(mother)

house of maid

house of maid


Chapter 6 ׀ 106

’āb, reflects a strong link between kin-relation, physical place of dwelling, and landownership. This link is one of the important reasons for the committing of endogamy, which was based on a physical proximity of the different nuclear (‘house of the mother’) and extended families (bātê ’āb). As Noll (2013) noted, the ideal marriage would be between daughters and sons of the same bêt ’āb (i.e., first cousins) or further between daughters and sons of different, yet related bātêy ’āb. In this way, the landownership would remain in the hands of the mišpāḥâ. Examples of endogamy in the biblical narratives are the marriage of Nahor and Milcah, the daughter of his late brother Haran (Gen 11), the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca, the daughter of Isaac’s cousin Beithuel (Gen 24), and the marriage of Jacob with his first cousins, the sisters Leah and Rachel (Gen 28–31). In each of these cases, the parents’ households were geograph-ically distant (in Canaan and Haran), but the kin-relations were in the preferred physical prox-imity. Endogamy was obviously not always possible, and exogamy was often inevitable (see Lehmann 2004). The importance of landownership and other properties of families and clans was enacted by legislation under the concept of gə’ūllâ ‘redemption’. Cross (1998: 4–5) noted that redemption concerned both property and kin-members. An example of the former is the levirate marriage in cases of widowhood without heirs (sons), in which the brother of a late husband marries his brother’s widow. An example of the latter is the redemption of poor kins-men who were sold as slaves by paying for their liberation. In addition to landownership, Leh-mann (2004) noted that marriage was a way of interaction between villages, either for the pur-pose of social and cultic activities or for economic exchanges. The genealogy of ancient Israel was based on the names of ancestors (usually males) and the places of household dwellings. Knowing the names of one’s ancestors’ was very important, as identification by the naming of ancestors in the presence of strangers could reveal kin relations and hence prevent trouble or, conversely, lead to recognition and assistance. An illustration of the relevance of genealogy is the encounter between Abraham’s servant and Rebecca in Gen-esis (24:23–24). Abraham, dwelling in the land of Canaan, sent his servant to his (Abraham’s) homeland Haran, to bring back a wife for his son Isaac. After a coincidental (arranged by God) encounter with Rebecca at the well where she gave water to the servant and his camels, the servant inquires after her identity. (1) wayyōmer bat-mî ’att haggîdî nā’ lî hăyēš bêt-’ābîk māqôm lānû lālîn wattō’mer ’ēlāyw bat-bətû’ēl ’ānōkî ben-milkâ ’ăšēr yāldâ lənāḥôr

‘He said, “please tell me whose daughter are you, is there room in your father’s house for us to lodge?” She said to him, “I am the daughter of Beitu’el, the son of Milcah,

whom she bore to Nahor”.’ (Gen 24:23–24) The servant does not ask Rebecca for her own name, but is instead interested in the identity of her father; she in turn provides her father’s name and the names of his parents. Mentioning the name of her father’s mother, Milcah, is not arbitrary; although the lineage is determined by the father, Nahor, he might have also had other wives, hence the identity of the mother is relevant. This point deserves some further attention. Chapman (2016) claimed that the generally ac-cepted idea of exclusively paternal genealogies in the Hebrew Bible needs a correction, and she supported her claim with different examples in which a mother’s identity is significant to

the development of a narrative or for the content of poetry. A mother’s identity may become known through an introduction by name as in (1) or, for example, by referring to her as a shared mother to other sibling(s) as in (2). (2) wayyiśśā’ ‘ênāyw wayyar’ ’et-binyāmîn ’āḥîw ben-’immô

‘He lifted up his eyes and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son.’ (Gen 43:29) Genesis 43:29 describes the moment that Joseph saw his younger brother Benjamin for the first time. The other brothers, also present at the event, were of the same father as Joseph, but they were the sons of different mothers than his own, namely Leah and the two maids. Benjamin was Joseph’s only brother by the same mother, Rachel. Chapman (2016: 1–5) showed how, in different contexts in the book of Genesis, the paternal genealogy (i.e., the chronological naming of male ancestors) is disrupted by “a series of maternally aligned kin groups with specific kin-ship labels that delineate maternal sub-houses within the larger house of the father”. An exam-ple of such a disruption is the genealogy of Cain (Gen 4:18–22) that, once it reaches Lamech (fifth generation), splits into two ‘houses of the mother’: one of Lamech’s wife Adah, the other of his wife Zillah. The following generation (i.e. Lamech’s children) is described from the perspective of the mother rather than of Lamech, as Figure 7.2 depicts. Common ancestry was also the basis for alliances between families and tribes that, according to Cross (1998: 12), was “a covenant . . . organized by the creation or identification of a com-mon ancestor and related by segmented genealogies. Such genealogies are in substantial part constructs, based as much on ‘kinship-in-law’ as real kinship”. The term ‘kinship-in-law’ was used by Cross to encode kin-relations such as marriage or adoption, which gained the same status as blood-kin. Finally, genealogy (i.e., kinship) is the basis of the emergence of the people of Israel, tracing back to Abraham. The kinship system described above entails a high degree of mutual dependence at all levels of society. Obviously, wives were dependent on their husbands, and children on their parents. Having a wife or wives and being able to provide for all their needs was essential for the in-heritance of land and properties by younger generations and, in this way, to keep it within the clan. Thus, the continuation of the lineage was ideally dependent on wives giving birth to sons. Different narratives in the Hebrew Bible show that although maids or concubines bore sons to the husbands of (childless) wives, these sons were not the preferred choice for inheritance or the carrying on of the genealogy. This is first implied in Genesis 21, where Abraham sends his son Ismael away with his mother Hagar (his wife’s maid) after the birth of his son Isaac to Sarah (Abraham’s wife). Later, in Genesis 25:5–6, Abraham gives all his properties to Isaac but sends his other sons (born to his concubines) away with gifts. Mutual dependence occurred also between extended families and clans for the purpose of protection and the maintenance of landownership. In the pre-monarchic period, alliances be-tween clans and tribes provided protection from enemies and were beneficial for cultic and religious practices (see Cross 1998). In the monarchic period (1000–586 BCE) the whole pop-ulation depended on the king for protection from enemies. These mutual dependences entailed the commitment and loyalty of all sides—i.e., provision, care, and protection on the side of the husbands, fathers, chiefs, kings, and God; bearing children (in particular sons) on the side of



’āb, reflects a strong link between kin-relation, physical place of dwelling, and landownership. This link is one of the important reasons for the committing of endogamy, which was based on a physical proximity of the different nuclear (‘house of the mother’) and extended families (bātê ’āb). As Noll (2013) noted, the ideal marriage would be between daughters and sons of the same bêt ’āb (i.e., first cousins) or further between daughters and sons of different, yet related bātêy ’āb. In this way, the landownership would remain in the hands of the mišpāḥâ. Examples of endogamy in the biblical narratives are the marriage of Nahor and Milcah, the daughter of his late brother Haran (Gen 11), the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca, the daughter of Isaac’s cousin Beithuel (Gen 24), and the marriage of Jacob with his first cousins, the sisters Leah and Rachel (Gen 28–31). In each of these cases, the parents’ households were geograph-ically distant (in Canaan and Haran), but the kin-relations were in the preferred physical prox-imity. Endogamy was obviously not always possible, and exogamy was often inevitable (see Lehmann 2004). The importance of landownership and other properties of families and clans was enacted by legislation under the concept of gə’ūllâ ‘redemption’. Cross (1998: 4–5) noted that redemption concerned both property and kin-members. An example of the former is the levirate marriage in cases of widowhood without heirs (sons), in which the brother of a late husband marries his brother’s widow. An example of the latter is the redemption of poor kins-men who were sold as slaves by paying for their liberation. In addition to landownership, Leh-mann (2004) noted that marriage was a way of interaction between villages, either for the pur-pose of social and cultic activities or for economic exchanges. The genealogy of ancient Israel was based on the names of ancestors (usually males) and the places of household dwellings. Knowing the names of one’s ancestors’ was very important, as identification by the naming of ancestors in the presence of strangers could reveal kin relations and hence prevent trouble or, conversely, lead to recognition and assistance. An illustration of the relevance of genealogy is the encounter between Abraham’s servant and Rebecca in Gen-esis (24:23–24). Abraham, dwelling in the land of Canaan, sent his servant to his (Abraham’s) homeland Haran, to bring back a wife for his son Isaac. After a coincidental (arranged by God) encounter with Rebecca at the well where she gave water to the servant and his camels, the servant inquires after her identity. (1) wayyōmer bat-mî ’att haggîdî nā’ lî hăyēš bêt-’ābîk māqôm lānû lālîn wattō’mer ’ēlāyw bat-bətû’ēl ’ānōkî ben-milkâ ’ăšēr yāldâ lənāḥôr

‘He said, “please tell me whose daughter are you, is there room in your father’s house for us to lodge?” She said to him, “I am the daughter of Beitu’el, the son of Milcah,

whom she bore to Nahor”.’ (Gen 24:23–24) The servant does not ask Rebecca for her own name, but is instead interested in the identity of her father; she in turn provides her father’s name and the names of his parents. Mentioning the name of her father’s mother, Milcah, is not arbitrary; although the lineage is determined by the father, Nahor, he might have also had other wives, hence the identity of the mother is relevant. This point deserves some further attention. Chapman (2016) claimed that the generally ac-cepted idea of exclusively paternal genealogies in the Hebrew Bible needs a correction, and she supported her claim with different examples in which a mother’s identity is significant to

the development of a narrative or for the content of poetry. A mother’s identity may become known through an introduction by name as in (1) or, for example, by referring to her as a shared mother to other sibling(s) as in (2). (2) wayyiśśā’ ‘ênāyw wayyar’ ’et-binyāmîn ’āḥîw ben-’immô

‘He lifted up his eyes and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son.’ (Gen 43:29) Genesis 43:29 describes the moment that Joseph saw his younger brother Benjamin for the first time. The other brothers, also present at the event, were of the same father as Joseph, but they were the sons of different mothers than his own, namely Leah and the two maids. Benjamin was Joseph’s only brother by the same mother, Rachel. Chapman (2016: 1–5) showed how, in different contexts in the book of Genesis, the paternal genealogy (i.e., the chronological naming of male ancestors) is disrupted by “a series of maternally aligned kin groups with specific kin-ship labels that delineate maternal sub-houses within the larger house of the father”. An exam-ple of such a disruption is the genealogy of Cain (Gen 4:18–22) that, once it reaches Lamech (fifth generation), splits into two ‘houses of the mother’: one of Lamech’s wife Adah, the other of his wife Zillah. The following generation (i.e. Lamech’s children) is described from the perspective of the mother rather than of Lamech, as Figure 7.2 depicts. Common ancestry was also the basis for alliances between families and tribes that, according to Cross (1998: 12), was “a covenant . . . organized by the creation or identification of a com-mon ancestor and related by segmented genealogies. Such genealogies are in substantial part constructs, based as much on ‘kinship-in-law’ as real kinship”. The term ‘kinship-in-law’ was used by Cross to encode kin-relations such as marriage or adoption, which gained the same status as blood-kin. Finally, genealogy (i.e., kinship) is the basis of the emergence of the people of Israel, tracing back to Abraham. The kinship system described above entails a high degree of mutual dependence at all levels of society. Obviously, wives were dependent on their husbands, and children on their parents. Having a wife or wives and being able to provide for all their needs was essential for the in-heritance of land and properties by younger generations and, in this way, to keep it within the clan. Thus, the continuation of the lineage was ideally dependent on wives giving birth to sons. Different narratives in the Hebrew Bible show that although maids or concubines bore sons to the husbands of (childless) wives, these sons were not the preferred choice for inheritance or the carrying on of the genealogy. This is first implied in Genesis 21, where Abraham sends his son Ismael away with his mother Hagar (his wife’s maid) after the birth of his son Isaac to Sarah (Abraham’s wife). Later, in Genesis 25:5–6, Abraham gives all his properties to Isaac but sends his other sons (born to his concubines) away with gifts. Mutual dependence occurred also between extended families and clans for the purpose of protection and the maintenance of landownership. In the pre-monarchic period, alliances be-tween clans and tribes provided protection from enemies and were beneficial for cultic and religious practices (see Cross 1998). In the monarchic period (1000–586 BCE) the whole pop-ulation depended on the king for protection from enemies. These mutual dependences entailed the commitment and loyalty of all sides—i.e., provision, care, and protection on the side of the husbands, fathers, chiefs, kings, and God; bearing children (in particular sons) on the side of


Chapter 6 ׀ 108

the wives; continuation of the lineage and protection of the inheritance on the side of the fathers and sons. The short overview above provides the sociocultural background of the conceptualisation of ’hb. Although the entire structure is characteristic of the monarchic period (1000-586 BCE), which did not continue in the post-exilic period (see Footnote 25 above), the patriarchal lineage and the centrality of bêt ’āb assumingly remained prominent in ancient Israel. As (3) shows, Ezra the priest, who is associated with this period, gathers the men who were the heads of each bêt ’āb according to their names. (3) wayyibbādlû ‘ezrā’ hakōhēn ’ănāšîm rā’šê hā’ābôt ləbêt ’ăbōtām wəkūllām bəšēmôt

‘Ezra the priest separated men, the heads of their fathers’ houses by (according to) names.’ (Ezra 10:16)

The following section proceeds with a specification of the aspects underlying this conceptual-isation, and especially with the conditions that enabled a conceptual transfer from affectionate-intimate to a more social-interactive and active meaning of ’hb, at least as far as can be deduced from its usage in the Hebrew Bible. 6.2.2 From intimate affection to social interaction Taking under consideration the hierarchical character of all the societal layers and the mutual dependence and loyalty that this entails, Moran (1963) and his followers’ approach to ’hb in Deuteronomy is not unreasonable. The idea of a covenant that both God and the people are engaged in may accordingly underlie the use of this lexeme in this book, where ’hb is com-manded to the people, who in return receive reward from God. In this context, ’hb denotes more so conduct or activity than emotive experience, in both God and humans. One possible reasoning behind such an approach could be the difficulty in attributing emotions (such as love) to a relationship between the divine and a human being, a relationship that is inherently hier-archical and less concrete than interpersonal relationships. According to this line of thinking, one of the most available cognitive models of such a relationship in the ancient Israelite culture was politics, and particularly the kingships and chiefdoms with their hierarchical structures. As the Moranian approach entails, a covenant based on existential needs like those underlying a sovereign-vassal relationship is the motivation underlying human-divine relationships in Deu-teronomy. Regardless of the related theological aspects and the prevailing conception of God as a su-preme ruler or sovereign in ancient Near Eastern cultures, this approach ignored the entire semantic field of ’hb in BH and especially its use in interpersonal domains. More precisely, this approach made a distinction between a ‘covenant love’ in Deuteronomy and affectionate love in interpersonal (mostly kin) relationships. Such a distinction is problematic at two tightly related dimensions of ’hb, namely the semantic and the conceptual. A polysemous term such as ’hb implies a conceptual link between its different senses, which together constitute its meaning. Moran did not consider whether a possible link existed between the two types of love that, according to him, were denoted by ’hb; other scholars have been more concerned with

such a link (see Ackerman 2002; Lapsley 2003; Arnold 2011; Lambert 2016; Grant 2019). Studies on ’hb in romantic relationships and marriage (e.g., Brenner 1997; van Wolde 2008) did not consider the occurrences of ’hb within Divinity or its other contexts. Lapsley’s (2003) study was the first that suggested a principal direction for a conceptual transfer or mapping from human, intimate, affectionate relationships to political and human-divine relationships. Lapsley further attributed affectionate elements to ’hb even within Deuteronomy, and as later studies also concluded (e.g., Arnold 2011; Grant 2019). The conceptual transfer from the hu-man intimate, affectionate to the political and human-divine relationships was implied in dif-ferent ways also by Bosman (2011) and Nikolsky (2019), and is the guiding principle of the present discussion as well. Hence, the inclusion of the entire corpus of ’hb is not only relevant for a semantic lexicographic examination, but it is also necessary for a comprehensive account of ’hb. Such an account can provide an understanding that is valid for all the contexts in which this lexeme appears, and it should be able to show the links between these contexts, the moti-vations for the occurrence of ’hb in them, and point toward a common conceptual source. The human intimate conceptual source of ’hb advocated here is based on primary (universal) physical and sociocultural experience as well as cognitive processes. More specifically, the ancient Israelite sociocultural structures and systems add culture-specific experience to the more universal physical experience of human beings; together they are seen here as the building blocks with which the cognitive processes (i.e., the tools) constitute the conceptualisation of ’hb in BH. Kinship in the Hebrew Bible reflects a sociocultural system that contains primary basic ex-periences (such as physical human touch and proximity), as well as primary basic social expe-riences, namely interpersonal, intimate relationships (such as care, dependence, commitment, and loyalty). Relationships based on care and dependence obviously have a hierarchical com-ponent; the caregiver (the one upon which another is dependent) is stronger and more authori-tative than the one who is dependent and receives the care. Loyalty and commitment, on the other hand, are required from both counterparts without necessarily violating this power-asym-metry. Being the fundament of society, it is more likely that the kinship system of ancient Israel with its primary experiences and hierarchy—and thus not the political system—was also the conceptual model for other social systems. The political system was an expansion of the kin-ship system. As Figures 6.1 and 6.2 illustrate, the ancient Israelite society consisted of a kern (i.e., house of the mother or nuclear family) and its expansion in the form of the bêt ’āb, clan, village, chiefdoms, and ultimately kingdom. The hierarchical relations that characterised the entire social order in the Hebrew Bible is thus based on the hierarchical relationships in the kinship system, and which make this sociocultural system a reasonable source of conceptual transfer or extension. Thus far, the discussion has included different kinship connections such as basic intimate relationships (probably the most representative of this kind), but romantic relationships deserve some attention as well in this regard. Although romance as a concept is rarely found in the Hebrew Bible outside Song of Songs, the erotic texts of the Song of Songs show that romance did exist in ancient Israelite minds. Nikolsky (2019: 138) rightly noted that erotic love, as in Song of Songs, does not have a negative connotation and is further not associated with immo-rality. From a social perspective, romance might not have had a strongly acknowledged role in ancient Israelite society, although narratives such as Jacob and Rachel in Genesis 29, Shechem



the wives; continuation of the lineage and protection of the inheritance on the side of the fathers and sons. The short overview above provides the sociocultural background of the conceptualisation of ’hb. Although the entire structure is characteristic of the monarchic period (1000-586 BCE), which did not continue in the post-exilic period (see Footnote 25 above), the patriarchal lineage and the centrality of bêt ’āb assumingly remained prominent in ancient Israel. As (3) shows, Ezra the priest, who is associated with this period, gathers the men who were the heads of each bêt ’āb according to their names. (3) wayyibbādlû ‘ezrā’ hakōhēn ’ănāšîm rā’šê hā’ābôt ləbêt ’ăbōtām wəkūllām bəšēmôt

‘Ezra the priest separated men, the heads of their fathers’ houses by (according to) names.’ (Ezra 10:16)

The following section proceeds with a specification of the aspects underlying this conceptual-isation, and especially with the conditions that enabled a conceptual transfer from affectionate-intimate to a more social-interactive and active meaning of ’hb, at least as far as can be deduced from its usage in the Hebrew Bible. 6.2.2 From intimate affection to social interaction Taking under consideration the hierarchical character of all the societal layers and the mutual dependence and loyalty that this entails, Moran (1963) and his followers’ approach to ’hb in Deuteronomy is not unreasonable. The idea of a covenant that both God and the people are engaged in may accordingly underlie the use of this lexeme in this book, where ’hb is com-manded to the people, who in return receive reward from God. In this context, ’hb denotes more so conduct or activity than emotive experience, in both God and humans. One possible reasoning behind such an approach could be the difficulty in attributing emotions (such as love) to a relationship between the divine and a human being, a relationship that is inherently hier-archical and less concrete than interpersonal relationships. According to this line of thinking, one of the most available cognitive models of such a relationship in the ancient Israelite culture was politics, and particularly the kingships and chiefdoms with their hierarchical structures. As the Moranian approach entails, a covenant based on existential needs like those underlying a sovereign-vassal relationship is the motivation underlying human-divine relationships in Deu-teronomy. Regardless of the related theological aspects and the prevailing conception of God as a su-preme ruler or sovereign in ancient Near Eastern cultures, this approach ignored the entire semantic field of ’hb in BH and especially its use in interpersonal domains. More precisely, this approach made a distinction between a ‘covenant love’ in Deuteronomy and affectionate love in interpersonal (mostly kin) relationships. Such a distinction is problematic at two tightly related dimensions of ’hb, namely the semantic and the conceptual. A polysemous term such as ’hb implies a conceptual link between its different senses, which together constitute its meaning. Moran did not consider whether a possible link existed between the two types of love that, according to him, were denoted by ’hb; other scholars have been more concerned with

such a link (see Ackerman 2002; Lapsley 2003; Arnold 2011; Lambert 2016; Grant 2019). Studies on ’hb in romantic relationships and marriage (e.g., Brenner 1997; van Wolde 2008) did not consider the occurrences of ’hb within Divinity or its other contexts. Lapsley’s (2003) study was the first that suggested a principal direction for a conceptual transfer or mapping from human, intimate, affectionate relationships to political and human-divine relationships. Lapsley further attributed affectionate elements to ’hb even within Deuteronomy, and as later studies also concluded (e.g., Arnold 2011; Grant 2019). The conceptual transfer from the hu-man intimate, affectionate to the political and human-divine relationships was implied in dif-ferent ways also by Bosman (2011) and Nikolsky (2019), and is the guiding principle of the present discussion as well. Hence, the inclusion of the entire corpus of ’hb is not only relevant for a semantic lexicographic examination, but it is also necessary for a comprehensive account of ’hb. Such an account can provide an understanding that is valid for all the contexts in which this lexeme appears, and it should be able to show the links between these contexts, the moti-vations for the occurrence of ’hb in them, and point toward a common conceptual source. The human intimate conceptual source of ’hb advocated here is based on primary (universal) physical and sociocultural experience as well as cognitive processes. More specifically, the ancient Israelite sociocultural structures and systems add culture-specific experience to the more universal physical experience of human beings; together they are seen here as the building blocks with which the cognitive processes (i.e., the tools) constitute the conceptualisation of ’hb in BH. Kinship in the Hebrew Bible reflects a sociocultural system that contains primary basic ex-periences (such as physical human touch and proximity), as well as primary basic social expe-riences, namely interpersonal, intimate relationships (such as care, dependence, commitment, and loyalty). Relationships based on care and dependence obviously have a hierarchical com-ponent; the caregiver (the one upon which another is dependent) is stronger and more authori-tative than the one who is dependent and receives the care. Loyalty and commitment, on the other hand, are required from both counterparts without necessarily violating this power-asym-metry. Being the fundament of society, it is more likely that the kinship system of ancient Israel with its primary experiences and hierarchy—and thus not the political system—was also the conceptual model for other social systems. The political system was an expansion of the kin-ship system. As Figures 6.1 and 6.2 illustrate, the ancient Israelite society consisted of a kern (i.e., house of the mother or nuclear family) and its expansion in the form of the bêt ’āb, clan, village, chiefdoms, and ultimately kingdom. The hierarchical relations that characterised the entire social order in the Hebrew Bible is thus based on the hierarchical relationships in the kinship system, and which make this sociocultural system a reasonable source of conceptual transfer or extension. Thus far, the discussion has included different kinship connections such as basic intimate relationships (probably the most representative of this kind), but romantic relationships deserve some attention as well in this regard. Although romance as a concept is rarely found in the Hebrew Bible outside Song of Songs, the erotic texts of the Song of Songs show that romance did exist in ancient Israelite minds. Nikolsky (2019: 138) rightly noted that erotic love, as in Song of Songs, does not have a negative connotation and is further not associated with immo-rality. From a social perspective, romance might not have had a strongly acknowledged role in ancient Israelite society, although narratives such as Jacob and Rachel in Genesis 29, Shechem


Chapter 6 ׀ 110

and Dinah in Genesis 34, among others provide counter examples. In the first of these, Jacob’s love for Rachel ended in marriage and the birth of Joseph, who later played an important role in the fate of his lineage, from which the people of Israel had evolved. In the second narrative, Shechem, a Hivite and the son of the ruler, could not marry Dinah as he was punished with death for raping or debasing her. Van Wolde (2003) suggested that Shechem’s forbidden love for Dinah was directly associated with his non-Israelite origin, which would have led to an undesirable commitment of exogamy (in this case not only between two different clans, but also between two different ethnic groups). In Judges 14, Samson loved the Philistine woman and insisted on marrying her despite the disapproval of his parents. The childless marriage was ended by the woman’s father who gave her to Samson’s friend during his absence. Finally, Michal’s love for David in 1 Samuel 18 did in fact lead to marriage, agreed to by her father King Saul who planned to use it for his own advantage against David. The relevant implication of these narratives to the present matter is that romance could (at least in some cases) lead to marriage. It thus seems possible to consider romance in these cases (in contrast to Song of Songs) as a related pre-kinship concept, and to further attribute intimacy, affection, and attach-ment to the experience of romantic feelings that ’hb denotes in them. Regardless of a possible link to kinship, the expression of erotica in Song of Songs by all means indicates an intimate affectionate nature, hence the use of ’hb in this context assumingly does not require an addi-tional cognitive effort; the conceptual link between this lexeme and romantic affection and intimacy is accessible (see also Nikolsky’s 2019 cognitive evolutionary perspective on the link between romantic love and physical experience in the Hebrew Bible). Another link between romance and kinship can be seen in the context of adultery, since it cannot occur outside the existence of marriage. Although adultery is not as primary and basic as kinship and romance, its affectionate and intimate elements bring it closer to the basic pri-mary relationships. Except for one occurrence, the use of ’hb in the domain of adultery is fig-urative, mostly with a negative connotation expressed by condemnation and rebuke. This use of ’hb is almost entirely restricted to the prophetic texts, except for one occurrence in a partic-ular lament of the book of Lamentations. The lover (expressed in the masculine form) is usually a foreign god(s) or other nations (mostly the Assyrians); the beloved (mostly using the feminine form) is Jerusalem/Zion or other Israelite towns, while in Hosea 8:9 it is Ephraim (i.e., the clan, using a masculine-gendered word). In (4a), the prophet Ezekiel, acting in the name of God, reproaches Jerusalem (a personification of the people) for abandoning God in favour of foreign gods, using the concepts of adultery and whoring. In (4b), the personified town of Zion laments the deceit of its lovers. (4) a. ləkŏl-zōnôt yittənû-nēdeh, wə’att nātatt ’et-nədānayik ləkŏl-mə’ahăbayik

wattišḥădî ’ôtām lābô’ ’ēlayik missabîb bətaznûtāyik ‘They give gifts to all whores, but you gave gifts to all your lovers, bribed them to come to you from every side with your whorings.’ (Ezek 16:33) b. qārā’tî lamə’ahăbay hēmmâ rimmûnî ‘I called my lovers, but they deceived me.’ (Lam 1:19) The use of ‘lovers’ in these examples, and in other similar occurrences, implies the existence

of a metaphorical marriage relationship between Jerusalem/Zion (a feminine metonymy of the people) and God, in addition to the violation of the marriage covenant by the wife who commits adultery. The intimacy of adultery relationships clearly serves as a conceptual source for hu-man-divine relationships, but in this case the negative aspects associated with adultery are em-ployed to emphasise God’s disappointment and anger. The gender-based hierarchy in the cul-tural domain of Adultery demonstrated in Chapter 4, is clearly apparent in this conceptualisa-tion, with the attribution of betrayal and immoral conduct to a metaphorical wife. Adultery in BH displays a conceptual blending, which associates divinity with marriage. This conceptual blending involves different conceptual sources. Whereas the main conceptual frames of the events are marriage and the related adultery, the participants are taken from the domains of geography (Jerusalem, also called Zion) and divinity. The former provides the role of the un-faithful wife, while the latter is the conceptual source of the betrayed husband and the mascu-line lover (see also Bosman 2011: 131, and for more on conceptual blending see Fauconnier & Turner 1998). The figurative use of ’hb in adultery thus reveals an underlying conceptual as-sociation between kinship and divinity in BH. Furthermore, the employment of marriage here as the main conceptual frame for the relationship between God and the people reflects a more general conception of divinity and its relation to humans in ancient Israelite culture, as will be shown in 6.3.2. So how does ’hb integrate within this conceptual transfer from intimate to social and political interactions? First, it is important to reemphasise that the gender-based hierarchy in the use of ’hb in kinship does not indicate an inherent hierarchy in this lexeme; rather, hierarchy is an inherent element of the kinship system itself. Kinship does share some common elements with ’hb, such as affection, attachment, intimacy, etc., and the prominence of kinship in the ancient culture also involves the conceptual availability of ’hb. The prominence of kinship and the affectionate, intimate elements it entails are also evident in occurrences of kinship terms in other cultural domains. For example,’āḥ ‘brother’ and ’ăḥôt ‘sister’ are used as metaphors for the ‘beloved’ in Song of Songs 4, 5, 8. A related metaphorisation occurs in Ruth 1:11–12, reported in Naomi’s words addressing Ruth and Orpah, her kalôt ‘daughters-in-law’, as bnōtay ‘my daughters’. These occurrences require further elaboration. The three women, Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah, were the only ones left from Elimelech’s bêt ’āb after he and his two sons died. Naomi became the head of this unit, ‘the house of the mother’ to use Chapman’s term. The three were on their way back from the land of Moab to Judaea after the death of Naomi’s husband and her two sons, when Naomi changed her mind. She told her daughters-in-law to go back, each to the house of her mother, using bənōtay ‘my daughters’, out of her care for them and with the hope that they would be able to remarry in their land, Moab. The Hebrew kalā ‘bride/daughter-in-law’ does not contain elements of ‘daughter’, but of ‘wife of son’, and hence the use of bənōtay ‘my daughters’ by Naomi implies affection and not the actual kin relation. The affection between Naomi and her daughters-in-law is clearly indicated by the events that follow, namely the emotional difficulty of Ruth and Orpah in parting from Naomi, and which ultimately ended with the refusal of Ruth to accept her mother-in-law’s words and instead to join her. This particular use of a kinship term to denote affectionate relationship is interesting also in that the conceptual transfer occurs here within the same cultural domain, Kinship. Calling Ruth and Orpah ‘my daughters’ stresses the strong bond that existed between Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, which implies two



and Dinah in Genesis 34, among others provide counter examples. In the first of these, Jacob’s love for Rachel ended in marriage and the birth of Joseph, who later played an important role in the fate of his lineage, from which the people of Israel had evolved. In the second narrative, Shechem, a Hivite and the son of the ruler, could not marry Dinah as he was punished with death for raping or debasing her. Van Wolde (2003) suggested that Shechem’s forbidden love for Dinah was directly associated with his non-Israelite origin, which would have led to an undesirable commitment of exogamy (in this case not only between two different clans, but also between two different ethnic groups). In Judges 14, Samson loved the Philistine woman and insisted on marrying her despite the disapproval of his parents. The childless marriage was ended by the woman’s father who gave her to Samson’s friend during his absence. Finally, Michal’s love for David in 1 Samuel 18 did in fact lead to marriage, agreed to by her father King Saul who planned to use it for his own advantage against David. The relevant implication of these narratives to the present matter is that romance could (at least in some cases) lead to marriage. It thus seems possible to consider romance in these cases (in contrast to Song of Songs) as a related pre-kinship concept, and to further attribute intimacy, affection, and attach-ment to the experience of romantic feelings that ’hb denotes in them. Regardless of a possible link to kinship, the expression of erotica in Song of Songs by all means indicates an intimate affectionate nature, hence the use of ’hb in this context assumingly does not require an addi-tional cognitive effort; the conceptual link between this lexeme and romantic affection and intimacy is accessible (see also Nikolsky’s 2019 cognitive evolutionary perspective on the link between romantic love and physical experience in the Hebrew Bible). Another link between romance and kinship can be seen in the context of adultery, since it cannot occur outside the existence of marriage. Although adultery is not as primary and basic as kinship and romance, its affectionate and intimate elements bring it closer to the basic pri-mary relationships. Except for one occurrence, the use of ’hb in the domain of adultery is fig-urative, mostly with a negative connotation expressed by condemnation and rebuke. This use of ’hb is almost entirely restricted to the prophetic texts, except for one occurrence in a partic-ular lament of the book of Lamentations. The lover (expressed in the masculine form) is usually a foreign god(s) or other nations (mostly the Assyrians); the beloved (mostly using the feminine form) is Jerusalem/Zion or other Israelite towns, while in Hosea 8:9 it is Ephraim (i.e., the clan, using a masculine-gendered word). In (4a), the prophet Ezekiel, acting in the name of God, reproaches Jerusalem (a personification of the people) for abandoning God in favour of foreign gods, using the concepts of adultery and whoring. In (4b), the personified town of Zion laments the deceit of its lovers. (4) a. ləkŏl-zōnôt yittənû-nēdeh, wə’att nātatt ’et-nədānayik ləkŏl-mə’ahăbayik

wattišḥădî ’ôtām lābô’ ’ēlayik missabîb bətaznûtāyik ‘They give gifts to all whores, but you gave gifts to all your lovers, bribed them to come to you from every side with your whorings.’ (Ezek 16:33) b. qārā’tî lamə’ahăbay hēmmâ rimmûnî ‘I called my lovers, but they deceived me.’ (Lam 1:19) The use of ‘lovers’ in these examples, and in other similar occurrences, implies the existence

of a metaphorical marriage relationship between Jerusalem/Zion (a feminine metonymy of the people) and God, in addition to the violation of the marriage covenant by the wife who commits adultery. The intimacy of adultery relationships clearly serves as a conceptual source for hu-man-divine relationships, but in this case the negative aspects associated with adultery are em-ployed to emphasise God’s disappointment and anger. The gender-based hierarchy in the cul-tural domain of Adultery demonstrated in Chapter 4, is clearly apparent in this conceptualisa-tion, with the attribution of betrayal and immoral conduct to a metaphorical wife. Adultery in BH displays a conceptual blending, which associates divinity with marriage. This conceptual blending involves different conceptual sources. Whereas the main conceptual frames of the events are marriage and the related adultery, the participants are taken from the domains of geography (Jerusalem, also called Zion) and divinity. The former provides the role of the un-faithful wife, while the latter is the conceptual source of the betrayed husband and the mascu-line lover (see also Bosman 2011: 131, and for more on conceptual blending see Fauconnier & Turner 1998). The figurative use of ’hb in adultery thus reveals an underlying conceptual as-sociation between kinship and divinity in BH. Furthermore, the employment of marriage here as the main conceptual frame for the relationship between God and the people reflects a more general conception of divinity and its relation to humans in ancient Israelite culture, as will be shown in 6.3.2. So how does ’hb integrate within this conceptual transfer from intimate to social and political interactions? First, it is important to reemphasise that the gender-based hierarchy in the use of ’hb in kinship does not indicate an inherent hierarchy in this lexeme; rather, hierarchy is an inherent element of the kinship system itself. Kinship does share some common elements with ’hb, such as affection, attachment, intimacy, etc., and the prominence of kinship in the ancient culture also involves the conceptual availability of ’hb. The prominence of kinship and the affectionate, intimate elements it entails are also evident in occurrences of kinship terms in other cultural domains. For example,’āḥ ‘brother’ and ’ăḥôt ‘sister’ are used as metaphors for the ‘beloved’ in Song of Songs 4, 5, 8. A related metaphorisation occurs in Ruth 1:11–12, reported in Naomi’s words addressing Ruth and Orpah, her kalôt ‘daughters-in-law’, as bnōtay ‘my daughters’. These occurrences require further elaboration. The three women, Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah, were the only ones left from Elimelech’s bêt ’āb after he and his two sons died. Naomi became the head of this unit, ‘the house of the mother’ to use Chapman’s term. The three were on their way back from the land of Moab to Judaea after the death of Naomi’s husband and her two sons, when Naomi changed her mind. She told her daughters-in-law to go back, each to the house of her mother, using bənōtay ‘my daughters’, out of her care for them and with the hope that they would be able to remarry in their land, Moab. The Hebrew kalā ‘bride/daughter-in-law’ does not contain elements of ‘daughter’, but of ‘wife of son’, and hence the use of bənōtay ‘my daughters’ by Naomi implies affection and not the actual kin relation. The affection between Naomi and her daughters-in-law is clearly indicated by the events that follow, namely the emotional difficulty of Ruth and Orpah in parting from Naomi, and which ultimately ended with the refusal of Ruth to accept her mother-in-law’s words and instead to join her. This particular use of a kinship term to denote affectionate relationship is interesting also in that the conceptual transfer occurs here within the same cultural domain, Kinship. Calling Ruth and Orpah ‘my daughters’ stresses the strong bond that existed between Naomi and her two daughters-in-law, which implies two


Chapter 6 ׀ 112

things. First, the bond of Naomi with her daughters-in-law is comparable to her bond with her own children; she sees them as daughters with all the intimacy and attachment that this entails. The second implication of this bond is that it enables us to assume that affectionate, love rela-tionships between a mother- and a daughter-in-law were not necessarily common in ancient Israel. This point receives support when Ruth’s love for Naomi, viewed from the perspective of Naomi’s friends, gets a special attention in the text (Ruth 4:15), marking the redemption of Naomi’s inheritance and the significance of Ruth’s future lineage; see (5). (5) kî kallātēk ’ăšer-’ăhēbatek yəlādattû ’ăšer-hî’ ṭôbâ lāk miššib‘â bānîm ‘For your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has

given birth to him.’ (Ruth 4:15) Finally, a kinship term also occurs in the context of friendship in David’s lament for Jonathan (2 Sam 1:26), wherein he refers to Jonathan as ’āḥi ‘my brother’. The friendship between these two is described by the unidirectional use of ’hb, from Jonathan to David, and the covenant they made as a symbol of the bond between them. The use of ’āḥi ‘my brother’ by the mourning David clearly expresses the conceptualisation of such a bond in terms of kin relations, namely an absolute intimate bond. In sum, Kinship is the domain in which the most basic, intimate relationships occur, and the prototypical cultural domain in which ’hb figures. From the perspective of ancient Israelite culture, kinship was the foundation of the society and of the emergence of the people. These attributes together make kinship a natural and suitable source for the conceptual transfer of ’hb to other contexts. This line of reasoning corresponds with the earlier analyses of Lapsley (2003) and Bosman (2011). Similarly, Cross (1998: 5) also sees kinship as the ultimate source of love-language in BH, arguing that “[…] the language of love (’ahăbāh) is kinship language, the bond that holds together those in intimate relationships, the relationships of family and kin-dred”. With the conceptual transfer from the realm of kinship, ’hb carries with it the interper-sonal roles that members of kin hold, and prototypically the roles of the members with higher status, the stronger ones, such as husbands and parents. This results in a prototypical, unidirec-tional structure that reflects not a unidirectional experience, but rather this unidirectional struc-ture reflects the unidirectionality of roles within the kinship system. Figure 6.3 illustrates the ideas that were discussed throughout the present section, and presents a synthesis between common insights and the innovative insights of Chapman (2016) in regard to the structure of the bêt ’āb. The upper part of Figure 6.3 shows the schematic structure of the kinship system, where a bêt ’āb ‘the house of the father’ (‘extended family’) consists of one (or more) bêt ’ēm ‘the house of the mother’. The figure also shows that the relation between one bêt ’āb to another may be based on genealogy, endogamy, levirate marriage, and possessions. As the lower part of Figure 6.3 shows, ’hb is strongly related to, and in fact may be alternated with, notions such as ‘care’, ‘provision’, ‘protection’, and ‘responsibility’. These notions emerge from the very intimate, affective relationships of kinship (i.e., marriage and parenthood, which are also two of the most intimate relationships ’hb encodes), and they also entail hierarchical relationships. Hence, intimacy and hierarchy are inseparable, basic elements of the kinship structure. Kinship relationships are not only the primary relationships ’hb encodes, but they also constitute the

conceptual source of the use of ’hb to encode other types of social relationships.

Figure 6.3: Correlations between basic relationships in bêt ’āb and the use of ’hb in the domain of Kinship

Another important point that Figure 6.3 highlights is the role of ‘the house of the mother’ (Chapman 2016; in the figure bêt ’ēm). The significance of ‘the house of the mother’ to gene-alogy and the relationships within a bêt ’āb that was discussed above, is clearly indicated in the use of ’hb when the lover is a husband-father. Although men had children by different women, among which included also maids and concubines, ’hb does not occur with the rela-tionships of those children, but only with the sons from the man’s wife. This is further elabo-rated in 6.3.1. The following sections will show how the two main patterns in the use of ’hb—gender-hierarchy and asymmetry—are conceptually related to the cultural background of kinship and the sociocultural order of ancient Israel. They further shed light on the emergence of transitivity in ’hb-events in the domain of Divinity and the use of ’hb with an inanimate beloved.

Between-bêt ’āb relations

genealogy endogamy

levirate possessions

Within-bêt ’āb relations

Husband-Father provide, protect, responsible for ’hb

bêt ’ēm

Wife-Mother bear children,

(sons) care ’hb

Child

inherit possessions, carry on lineage

i

nherit possessions

inher

bêt ’āb

bêt ’ēm

bêt ’āb

bêt ’ēm



things. First, the bond of Naomi with her daughters-in-law is comparable to her bond with her own children; she sees them as daughters with all the intimacy and attachment that this entails. The second implication of this bond is that it enables us to assume that affectionate, love rela-tionships between a mother- and a daughter-in-law were not necessarily common in ancient Israel. This point receives support when Ruth’s love for Naomi, viewed from the perspective of Naomi’s friends, gets a special attention in the text (Ruth 4:15), marking the redemption of Naomi’s inheritance and the significance of Ruth’s future lineage; see (5). (5) kî kallātēk ’ăšer-’ăhēbatek yəlādattû ’ăšer-hî’ ṭôbâ lāk miššib‘â bānîm ‘For your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has

given birth to him.’ (Ruth 4:15) Finally, a kinship term also occurs in the context of friendship in David’s lament for Jonathan (2 Sam 1:26), wherein he refers to Jonathan as ’āḥi ‘my brother’. The friendship between these two is described by the unidirectional use of ’hb, from Jonathan to David, and the covenant they made as a symbol of the bond between them. The use of ’āḥi ‘my brother’ by the mourning David clearly expresses the conceptualisation of such a bond in terms of kin relations, namely an absolute intimate bond. In sum, Kinship is the domain in which the most basic, intimate relationships occur, and the prototypical cultural domain in which ’hb figures. From the perspective of ancient Israelite culture, kinship was the foundation of the society and of the emergence of the people. These attributes together make kinship a natural and suitable source for the conceptual transfer of ’hb to other contexts. This line of reasoning corresponds with the earlier analyses of Lapsley (2003) and Bosman (2011). Similarly, Cross (1998: 5) also sees kinship as the ultimate source of love-language in BH, arguing that “[…] the language of love (’ahăbāh) is kinship language, the bond that holds together those in intimate relationships, the relationships of family and kin-dred”. With the conceptual transfer from the realm of kinship, ’hb carries with it the interper-sonal roles that members of kin hold, and prototypically the roles of the members with higher status, the stronger ones, such as husbands and parents. This results in a prototypical, unidirec-tional structure that reflects not a unidirectional experience, but rather this unidirectional struc-ture reflects the unidirectionality of roles within the kinship system. Figure 6.3 illustrates the ideas that were discussed throughout the present section, and presents a synthesis between common insights and the innovative insights of Chapman (2016) in regard to the structure of the bêt ’āb. The upper part of Figure 6.3 shows the schematic structure of the kinship system, where a bêt ’āb ‘the house of the father’ (‘extended family’) consists of one (or more) bêt ’ēm ‘the house of the mother’. The figure also shows that the relation between one bêt ’āb to another may be based on genealogy, endogamy, levirate marriage, and possessions. As the lower part of Figure 6.3 shows, ’hb is strongly related to, and in fact may be alternated with, notions such as ‘care’, ‘provision’, ‘protection’, and ‘responsibility’. These notions emerge from the very intimate, affective relationships of kinship (i.e., marriage and parenthood, which are also two of the most intimate relationships ’hb encodes), and they also entail hierarchical relationships. Hence, intimacy and hierarchy are inseparable, basic elements of the kinship structure. Kinship relationships are not only the primary relationships ’hb encodes, but they also constitute the

conceptual source of the use of ’hb to encode other types of social relationships.

Figure 6.3: Correlations between basic relationships in bêt ’āb and the use of ’hb in the domain of Kinship

Another important point that Figure 6.3 highlights is the role of ‘the house of the mother’ (Chapman 2016; in the figure bêt ’ēm). The significance of ‘the house of the mother’ to gene-alogy and the relationships within a bêt ’āb that was discussed above, is clearly indicated in the use of ’hb when the lover is a husband-father. Although men had children by different women, among which included also maids and concubines, ’hb does not occur with the rela-tionships of those children, but only with the sons from the man’s wife. This is further elabo-rated in 6.3.1. The following sections will show how the two main patterns in the use of ’hb—gender-hierarchy and asymmetry—are conceptually related to the cultural background of kinship and the sociocultural order of ancient Israel. They further shed light on the emergence of transitivity in ’hb-events in the domain of Divinity and the use of ’hb with an inanimate beloved.

Between-bêt ’āb relations

genealogy endogamy

levirate possessions

Within-bêt ’āb relations

Husband-Father provide, protect, responsible for ’hb

bêt ’ēm

Wife-Mother bear children,

(sons) care ’hb

Child

inherit possessions, carry on lineage

i

nherit possessions

inher

bêt ’āb

bêt ’ēm

bêt ’āb

bêt ’ēm


Chapter 6 ׀ 114

6.3 The role of ’hb in the social order in the Hebrew Bible The previous section has demonstrated how the use of ’hb in BH correlates with the sociocul-tural structure of ancient Israel. This correlation, it was shown, constitutes the basis of the conceptual transfer from the most affectionate, intimate relationships to other interpersonal and human-divine relationships. In the present section I argue that this conceptual transfer marks a role that ’hb plays in the social order as this is reflected in the texts. In other words, the very use of ’hb in hierarchical and other, non-inherent contexts serves a particular purpose, namely highlighting significant ideas. The discussion here is based on the main patterns that character-ise the use of ’hb. 6.3.1 Gender-based hierarchy The gender-based hierarchy in the cultural domains of Kinship and Adultery is especially sali-ent in the contexts of marriage and parenthood, where the individual identity of women (wives and mothers) is more frequent than in other contexts. Their identity is also often significant to the development of the narratives. Hence, also in contexts where the identities of both a hus-band and a wife or a father and a mother are known, in the majority of the occurrences the lover is the husband or father and not the wife or mother. A closer examination of the domain of Kinship can further clarify this gender-based use of ’hb. Women in ancient Israel could usually not choose their spouses.26 Although men were also not necessarily free in their choice of a wife (as marriage was usually arranged by fathers for their sons and daughters), the legislation in Deuteronomy 24:1 shows that a man’s approval of his wife was important, namely a man was free to divorce his wife if he saw indecency in her. Since the main purpose of marriage was to maintain the genealogy and ownership of the land and other possessions, giving birth to children was the most important role of the wife, and hence the (in)ability to bear children was an important factor of marriage. Being the only pos-sible possessor, a man was the only one who could have heirs. As a consequence of these circumstances, an optimal marriage was one in which the husband would be satisfied with the prospect of his genealogy and possessions, and therefore would be satisfied with his wife and her motherhood. This satisfaction entails responsibility, care, and attention of the husband to-ward his wife, and is implied in different contexts by the use of ’hb, as, for example, in (6). (6) wattahar lē’â wattēled bēn wattiqrā’ šəmô rə’ûbēn kî ’āmrâ kî-rā’â yāhwəh bə‘ŏnyî kî

‘attâ ye’ĕhābanî ’îšî ‘Leah conceived, bore a son, named him Reuben, for she said: “Yhwh saw my misery, so now my husband will love me”.’ (Gen 29:32)

26 One counter-example of this in the Hebrew Bible is the marriage of Michal and David in 1 Sam 18 mentioned above, which served the interests of King Saul, Michal’s father. Another noteworthy case occurs in Gen 24:58 and indicates the possibility of the future wife’s consent. In this narrative, Rebecca is asked by her family whether she would join the servant of her future husband Isaac, whom she did not yet know, to his land to become his wife there.

The example in (6) illustrates Leah’s desire for her husband Jacob’s love after many years of infertility and the consequent misery she experienced. The broader context of this experience is the love Jacob felt for her younger sister Rachel, his other, favourite wife. Giving birth to a son would, from Leah’s perspective, increase the affection and appreciation Jacob had toward her. A counter-example of the link between ’hb and genealogy in the domain of marriage is the narrative of Elkanah and Hannah in 1 Samuel 1. Childless Hannah was Elkanah’s beloved wife, in spite of the fact that his other wife, Peninnah, had bore him children. This narrative reflects the affective core of ’hb and, in addition, marks the origin of a significant figure in the biblical texts, namely Samuel, the son of Elkanah and Hannah who would become an important prophet. In this case, ’hb is not linked to genealogy and kinship, but rather signals an important link between the people and God through the future role of Samuel, a faithful prophet to God. Another counter-example, in (7), implies the significance of loyalty and trust in marriage, re-gardless of the existence of children. (7) wattēbk ’ēšet šimšôn ‘ālāyw wattō’mer raq-śnē’tanî wəlō’ ’ăhabtānî haḥîdâ ḥadtā libnê

‘ammî wəlî lō’ higgadtâ ‘Samson’s wife wept before him and said, you only hate me, you do not love me. You

have put a riddle to my people, and you did not tell it to me.’ (Judg 14:16) The complaint of Samson’s wife indicates her disappointment in his (from her perspective) lack of trust, which is expressed by the negation of ’hb. Although the text tells us that Samson’s wife used these words to evoke his sympathy with the hope of receiving the solution to his riddle, it suggests that a husband’s love would, among other things, be demonstrated by trust and sharing. This example further indicates the significance of intimacy in marriage, and sup-ports the idea about a conceptual link between romance and marriage that was discussed in the previous section. The examples above show that the use of ’hb in marriage relationships conveys the important elements of a successful or optimal marriage. The most important goal of marriage is the ability to reproduce in order to have heirs and it first of all requires provision and responsibility from the husband. Additionally, intimacy (indicated by the existence of affection, trust, or sharing) is an important and desirable element, which would optimise the conditions for reproduction and hence also for the protection of properties. The related prototypical fatherly love encoded by ’hb in the parent-child relationship is a natural extension of the husband-wife relationship. As different narratives show, the father’s preference for a particular heir was in some cases expressed by ’hb. In Genesis 25:28, for ex-ample, ’hb encodes the affection of Isaac for his first-born son Esau, to whom he would later (in Genesis 27) dedicate his blessing for a fortunate future. This blessing did not reach Esau, but was erroneously given to his brother Jacob, who, instructed by his mother Rebecca, imper-sonated his brother in order to deceive his blind father. Genesis 25:28 also expresses Rebecca’s affection for Jacob and is the only occurrence a motherly love encoded by ’hb. This narrative, with the preceding information about the contrast in parental preferences for Esau and Jacob, illustrates the significance of fatherly love or affection in the ancient Israelite culture by indi-cating a link between ’hb and inheritance (or its failure). At the same time, the explicit and



6.3 The role of ’hb in the social order in the Hebrew Bible The previous section has demonstrated how the use of ’hb in BH correlates with the sociocul-tural structure of ancient Israel. This correlation, it was shown, constitutes the basis of the conceptual transfer from the most affectionate, intimate relationships to other interpersonal and human-divine relationships. In the present section I argue that this conceptual transfer marks a role that ’hb plays in the social order as this is reflected in the texts. In other words, the very use of ’hb in hierarchical and other, non-inherent contexts serves a particular purpose, namely highlighting significant ideas. The discussion here is based on the main patterns that character-ise the use of ’hb. 6.3.1 Gender-based hierarchy The gender-based hierarchy in the cultural domains of Kinship and Adultery is especially sali-ent in the contexts of marriage and parenthood, where the individual identity of women (wives and mothers) is more frequent than in other contexts. Their identity is also often significant to the development of the narratives. Hence, also in contexts where the identities of both a hus-band and a wife or a father and a mother are known, in the majority of the occurrences the lover is the husband or father and not the wife or mother. A closer examination of the domain of Kinship can further clarify this gender-based use of ’hb. Women in ancient Israel could usually not choose their spouses.26 Although men were also not necessarily free in their choice of a wife (as marriage was usually arranged by fathers for their sons and daughters), the legislation in Deuteronomy 24:1 shows that a man’s approval of his wife was important, namely a man was free to divorce his wife if he saw indecency in her. Since the main purpose of marriage was to maintain the genealogy and ownership of the land and other possessions, giving birth to children was the most important role of the wife, and hence the (in)ability to bear children was an important factor of marriage. Being the only pos-sible possessor, a man was the only one who could have heirs. As a consequence of these circumstances, an optimal marriage was one in which the husband would be satisfied with the prospect of his genealogy and possessions, and therefore would be satisfied with his wife and her motherhood. This satisfaction entails responsibility, care, and attention of the husband to-ward his wife, and is implied in different contexts by the use of ’hb, as, for example, in (6). (6) wattahar lē’â wattēled bēn wattiqrā’ šəmô rə’ûbēn kî ’āmrâ kî-rā’â yāhwəh bə‘ŏnyî kî

‘attâ ye’ĕhābanî ’îšî ‘Leah conceived, bore a son, named him Reuben, for she said: “Yhwh saw my misery, so now my husband will love me”.’ (Gen 29:32)

26 One counter-example of this in the Hebrew Bible is the marriage of Michal and David in 1 Sam 18 mentioned above, which served the interests of King Saul, Michal’s father. Another noteworthy case occurs in Gen 24:58 and indicates the possibility of the future wife’s consent. In this narrative, Rebecca is asked by her family whether she would join the servant of her future husband Isaac, whom she did not yet know, to his land to become his wife there.

The example in (6) illustrates Leah’s desire for her husband Jacob’s love after many years of infertility and the consequent misery she experienced. The broader context of this experience is the love Jacob felt for her younger sister Rachel, his other, favourite wife. Giving birth to a son would, from Leah’s perspective, increase the affection and appreciation Jacob had toward her. A counter-example of the link between ’hb and genealogy in the domain of marriage is the narrative of Elkanah and Hannah in 1 Samuel 1. Childless Hannah was Elkanah’s beloved wife, in spite of the fact that his other wife, Peninnah, had bore him children. This narrative reflects the affective core of ’hb and, in addition, marks the origin of a significant figure in the biblical texts, namely Samuel, the son of Elkanah and Hannah who would become an important prophet. In this case, ’hb is not linked to genealogy and kinship, but rather signals an important link between the people and God through the future role of Samuel, a faithful prophet to God. Another counter-example, in (7), implies the significance of loyalty and trust in marriage, re-gardless of the existence of children. (7) wattēbk ’ēšet šimšôn ‘ālāyw wattō’mer raq-śnē’tanî wəlō’ ’ăhabtānî haḥîdâ ḥadtā libnê

‘ammî wəlî lō’ higgadtâ ‘Samson’s wife wept before him and said, you only hate me, you do not love me. You

have put a riddle to my people, and you did not tell it to me.’ (Judg 14:16) The complaint of Samson’s wife indicates her disappointment in his (from her perspective) lack of trust, which is expressed by the negation of ’hb. Although the text tells us that Samson’s wife used these words to evoke his sympathy with the hope of receiving the solution to his riddle, it suggests that a husband’s love would, among other things, be demonstrated by trust and sharing. This example further indicates the significance of intimacy in marriage, and sup-ports the idea about a conceptual link between romance and marriage that was discussed in the previous section. The examples above show that the use of ’hb in marriage relationships conveys the important elements of a successful or optimal marriage. The most important goal of marriage is the ability to reproduce in order to have heirs and it first of all requires provision and responsibility from the husband. Additionally, intimacy (indicated by the existence of affection, trust, or sharing) is an important and desirable element, which would optimise the conditions for reproduction and hence also for the protection of properties. The related prototypical fatherly love encoded by ’hb in the parent-child relationship is a natural extension of the husband-wife relationship. As different narratives show, the father’s preference for a particular heir was in some cases expressed by ’hb. In Genesis 25:28, for ex-ample, ’hb encodes the affection of Isaac for his first-born son Esau, to whom he would later (in Genesis 27) dedicate his blessing for a fortunate future. This blessing did not reach Esau, but was erroneously given to his brother Jacob, who, instructed by his mother Rebecca, imper-sonated his brother in order to deceive his blind father. Genesis 25:28 also expresses Rebecca’s affection for Jacob and is the only occurrence a motherly love encoded by ’hb. This narrative, with the preceding information about the contrast in parental preferences for Esau and Jacob, illustrates the significance of fatherly love or affection in the ancient Israelite culture by indi-cating a link between ’hb and inheritance (or its failure). At the same time, the explicit and


Chapter 6 ׀ 116

exceptional use of ’hb to encode Rebecca’s preference of Jacob is not arbitrary, but signals a future significant development in the plot as Jacob (and not Esau) became one of the ancestors of Israel.27 In this narrative, the fatherly love expressed by ’hb may signify the optimal kinship system, while the atypical motherly love expressed by ’hb plays a role beyond the kinship system. Another example of the link between ’hb and genealogy is the first occurrence of the lexeme in the texts, here in (8). (8) wayyō’mer qaḥ-nā’ ’et-binkā ’et-yəḥîdkā ’ăšer-’āhabtā ’et-yiṣḥāq ‘He said, take your son, the only one, whom you love, Isaac.’ (Gen 22:2) Isaac was not the only son of Abraham as he also had a son from his wife’s Egyptian maid Hagar (and perhaps other maids or concubines). But Isaac was Abraham’s only son by his wife Sarah after many childless years. The use of ’hb in (8) emphasises the uniqueness of Isaac to Abraham in two ways. First, Isaac was the first son who was born to Abraham’s only wife at the time (after her death he married Keturah), and not to her maid or concubines, and was thus an obviously preferred heir. Second, Isaac was the natural, subsequent ancestor of Israel after Abraham. An interesting case expressed by ’hb with Jacob in the role of the lover encodes fatherly love but also implies a husband’s love. With the exception of two occurrences immediately after he married her, ’hb is not used to encode Jacob’s feelings for Rachel during their marriage. Jacob’s love for his son Joseph in Genesis 37:3–4, encoded by ’hb, expresses his preference for Joseph over the rest of his sons born to him by Leah and his wives’ maids, and is motivated by the fact that Joseph was his youngest son at that time.28 Later, in Genesis 44:20, ’hb encodes Jacob’s love for his then youngest son Benjamin. Both Joseph and Benjamin were the only sons born to Rachel, Jacob’s beloved wife. Jacob’s preference for Joseph and, at a later stage, his love for Benjamin thus hint at his love for Rachel, which is not explicitly expressed after he married her. His love for Rachel that began long before he married her continued to influence him and, consequently, the way he felt for their sons, who were dearer to him than his sons who were born to Leah and his wives’ maids. But using ’hb to express Jacob’s preference for Joseph may also hint at the significant role Joseph would later play in the biblical texts during the exile in Egypt. Joseph, who held a high political position in the kingship of Pharaoh, played a crucial role in the survival of his family during the drought. In fact, the two possibilities are related and perhaps inseparable in the sense that Jacob’s love for Rachel, which received so much attention, was first encoded by ’hb to mark the beginning of this significant narrative, while his later love for Rachel’s sons, also encoded by ’hb, emphasise its development. To summarise, the gender-based hierarchy in the use of ’hb in the cultural domain of Kinship is not motivated by and does not reflect an inherent hierarchical character of this lexeme in BH, and certainly not of love and affection. Rather, this particular use of ’hb highlights important

27 A related point of view in regard to this exceptional use is presented by Ackerman (2002: 443–45), who con-siders the possibility that “loving in the Bible’s interpersonal relationship accounts should be understood as an initiating action that determines or sets the stage for what is to follow”, but finds it unsatisfactory after all. 28 As was argued in Chapter 4 (4.3.1), in regard to Vanderhooft’s (2018) view, the use of ’hb in parenthood relationships, even though it may denote preference as in Gen 37:3–4, seems to be more of a spontaneous affinity or attachment rather than a conscious choice.

ideas that are conveyed through the texts and it reaches beyond Kinship. In this light, the ob-served gender-based hierarchy can be seen as a reduced or simplified form, which does not have its own significance, yet is employed as an instrument to maintain significant ideas. The use of this instrument in the domain of Kinship is natural because it is familiar from the kinship system. In other words, the existence of a gender-based hierarchy in Kinship by no means entails a conceptualisation of ’hb, and certainly not of love and affection, as a prototypically masculine experience in BH. 6.3.2 Semantic asymmetry The semantic asymmetry in the cultural domain of Divinity can be further elaborated in relation to the conceptual transfer from Kinship to this domain and the presence of kin terms within it. Cross (1998: 6–7) argued that the use of intimate kin terms in the domain of Divinity was an obvious case of ‘sociomorphism’, by which he means that the concept of God can be seen as kin-related. This perception was not unique to ancient Israel and BH, but was common to other West-Semitic ancient languages. Cross noted that deity’s names with the element ’āb, ‘father’ were common in Amorite, Canaanite, and Hebrew, and he used the term ‘Divine Kinsman’ to describe the kin-originated conception of God. Cross further identified a direct similarity be-tween a human and a divine kinsman, and also attributed political properties to the latter, ac-cording to which: “The Divine Kinsman . . . fulfills the mutual obligations and receives the privileges of kinship. He leads in battle, redeems from slavery, loves his family, shares the land of his heritage (naḥălāh), provides and protects. He blesses those who bless his kindred, curses those who curse his kindred” (Cross 1998: 7). Following this line, the observed volitionality in the use of ’hb with God as lover can be explained by the conceptual link between deity and kinsmen. The conception of God as a re-sponsible and beneficial figure implied from ’hb-events in Divinity, correlates with the roles that husband and father have in the kin system, namely provision, protection, responsibility, and care (see Figure 6.3). Kinship is the conceptual source of ’hb-events in Divinity, where the deeds of God as lover are volitional, though they also emerge out of necessity of the continua-tion of a lineage and inheritance as it is in the domain of Kinship. God takes responsibility for his people, fulfils important tasks in their lives, and is affectionate toward them of his own free will and choice, but the tone of these deeds and conduct originates from the roles of husband and father in the kinship system. If God is the conceptual equivalent of a kinsman, such as a husband, then the conceptual blending between marriage and divinity in Adultery discussed above is not at all odd. Similarly, the people could also be seen as the conceptual equivalent of children with the semantic asym-metry that expresses the hierarchical distinction between them and God. The difference in sta-tus between God and the people in BH is, however, by all means prominent and clear, as is also indicated by the use of the other lexemes that will be discussed in Chapter 7. In the use of the destruction lexemes, nkh/ḥwṭ/hlm ‘hit/strike’ and hrg ‘kill’, for example, God obviously never occurs as the patient. The superiority of God entails, among other things, his immortality and his near absolute invisibility; therefore, an affective feeling for him may be less obvious and natural than for human beings, and perhaps also other animate or inanimate concrete



exceptional use of ’hb to encode Rebecca’s preference of Jacob is not arbitrary, but signals a future significant development in the plot as Jacob (and not Esau) became one of the ancestors of Israel.27 In this narrative, the fatherly love expressed by ’hb may signify the optimal kinship system, while the atypical motherly love expressed by ’hb plays a role beyond the kinship system. Another example of the link between ’hb and genealogy is the first occurrence of the lexeme in the texts, here in (8). (8) wayyō’mer qaḥ-nā’ ’et-binkā ’et-yəḥîdkā ’ăšer-’āhabtā ’et-yiṣḥāq ‘He said, take your son, the only one, whom you love, Isaac.’ (Gen 22:2) Isaac was not the only son of Abraham as he also had a son from his wife’s Egyptian maid Hagar (and perhaps other maids or concubines). But Isaac was Abraham’s only son by his wife Sarah after many childless years. The use of ’hb in (8) emphasises the uniqueness of Isaac to Abraham in two ways. First, Isaac was the first son who was born to Abraham’s only wife at the time (after her death he married Keturah), and not to her maid or concubines, and was thus an obviously preferred heir. Second, Isaac was the natural, subsequent ancestor of Israel after Abraham. An interesting case expressed by ’hb with Jacob in the role of the lover encodes fatherly love but also implies a husband’s love. With the exception of two occurrences immediately after he married her, ’hb is not used to encode Jacob’s feelings for Rachel during their marriage. Jacob’s love for his son Joseph in Genesis 37:3–4, encoded by ’hb, expresses his preference for Joseph over the rest of his sons born to him by Leah and his wives’ maids, and is motivated by the fact that Joseph was his youngest son at that time.28 Later, in Genesis 44:20, ’hb encodes Jacob’s love for his then youngest son Benjamin. Both Joseph and Benjamin were the only sons born to Rachel, Jacob’s beloved wife. Jacob’s preference for Joseph and, at a later stage, his love for Benjamin thus hint at his love for Rachel, which is not explicitly expressed after he married her. His love for Rachel that began long before he married her continued to influence him and, consequently, the way he felt for their sons, who were dearer to him than his sons who were born to Leah and his wives’ maids. But using ’hb to express Jacob’s preference for Joseph may also hint at the significant role Joseph would later play in the biblical texts during the exile in Egypt. Joseph, who held a high political position in the kingship of Pharaoh, played a crucial role in the survival of his family during the drought. In fact, the two possibilities are related and perhaps inseparable in the sense that Jacob’s love for Rachel, which received so much attention, was first encoded by ’hb to mark the beginning of this significant narrative, while his later love for Rachel’s sons, also encoded by ’hb, emphasise its development. To summarise, the gender-based hierarchy in the use of ’hb in the cultural domain of Kinship is not motivated by and does not reflect an inherent hierarchical character of this lexeme in BH, and certainly not of love and affection. Rather, this particular use of ’hb highlights important

27 A related point of view in regard to this exceptional use is presented by Ackerman (2002: 443–45), who con-siders the possibility that “loving in the Bible’s interpersonal relationship accounts should be understood as an initiating action that determines or sets the stage for what is to follow”, but finds it unsatisfactory after all. 28 As was argued in Chapter 4 (4.3.1), in regard to Vanderhooft’s (2018) view, the use of ’hb in parenthood relationships, even though it may denote preference as in Gen 37:3–4, seems to be more of a spontaneous affinity or attachment rather than a conscious choice.

ideas that are conveyed through the texts and it reaches beyond Kinship. In this light, the ob-served gender-based hierarchy can be seen as a reduced or simplified form, which does not have its own significance, yet is employed as an instrument to maintain significant ideas. The use of this instrument in the domain of Kinship is natural because it is familiar from the kinship system. In other words, the existence of a gender-based hierarchy in Kinship by no means entails a conceptualisation of ’hb, and certainly not of love and affection, as a prototypically masculine experience in BH. 6.3.2 Semantic asymmetry The semantic asymmetry in the cultural domain of Divinity can be further elaborated in relation to the conceptual transfer from Kinship to this domain and the presence of kin terms within it. Cross (1998: 6–7) argued that the use of intimate kin terms in the domain of Divinity was an obvious case of ‘sociomorphism’, by which he means that the concept of God can be seen as kin-related. This perception was not unique to ancient Israel and BH, but was common to other West-Semitic ancient languages. Cross noted that deity’s names with the element ’āb, ‘father’ were common in Amorite, Canaanite, and Hebrew, and he used the term ‘Divine Kinsman’ to describe the kin-originated conception of God. Cross further identified a direct similarity be-tween a human and a divine kinsman, and also attributed political properties to the latter, ac-cording to which: “The Divine Kinsman . . . fulfills the mutual obligations and receives the privileges of kinship. He leads in battle, redeems from slavery, loves his family, shares the land of his heritage (naḥălāh), provides and protects. He blesses those who bless his kindred, curses those who curse his kindred” (Cross 1998: 7). Following this line, the observed volitionality in the use of ’hb with God as lover can be explained by the conceptual link between deity and kinsmen. The conception of God as a re-sponsible and beneficial figure implied from ’hb-events in Divinity, correlates with the roles that husband and father have in the kin system, namely provision, protection, responsibility, and care (see Figure 6.3). Kinship is the conceptual source of ’hb-events in Divinity, where the deeds of God as lover are volitional, though they also emerge out of necessity of the continua-tion of a lineage and inheritance as it is in the domain of Kinship. God takes responsibility for his people, fulfils important tasks in their lives, and is affectionate toward them of his own free will and choice, but the tone of these deeds and conduct originates from the roles of husband and father in the kinship system. If God is the conceptual equivalent of a kinsman, such as a husband, then the conceptual blending between marriage and divinity in Adultery discussed above is not at all odd. Similarly, the people could also be seen as the conceptual equivalent of children with the semantic asym-metry that expresses the hierarchical distinction between them and God. The difference in sta-tus between God and the people in BH is, however, by all means prominent and clear, as is also indicated by the use of the other lexemes that will be discussed in Chapter 7. In the use of the destruction lexemes, nkh/ḥwṭ/hlm ‘hit/strike’ and hrg ‘kill’, for example, God obviously never occurs as the patient. The superiority of God entails, among other things, his immortality and his near absolute invisibility; therefore, an affective feeling for him may be less obvious and natural than for human beings, and perhaps also other animate or inanimate concrete


Chapter 6 ׀ 118

objects. In other words, the superiority of God does not need intensification because it is obvi-ous. The question is then why ’hb would be necessary in this context, or what it further con-tributes to it. The answer is that the use of ’hb in this context facilitates the commandment by making it more familiar and accessible. That is, the core affective meaning of ’hb and the intimacy and attachment it shares with kin relations have a familiarising function in the commanded use and, as a consequence, they contribute to the accessibility and acceptability of the commandment. The meaning of ’hb in the domain of Divinity is thus extended not only iconically (i.e., hierar-chically, from husband/father to wife/child), but also in a counter-iconic manner (i.e., from child to father), which stresses the mutual commitment between God and the people. The coun-ter-iconic use of ’hb retains the hierarchical relationships by its commanded use as well as the affection and intimacy that are inherent to ’hb. This facilitating, familiarising use of ’hb well illustrates the universal-cultural experiential origin of emotion conceptualisation that was discussed in Chapter 2, according to which both primary (physical) experience (e.g. physical sensation and proximity of mother-child relation-ship) and sociocultural experience (e.g. patriarchy, social hierarchy) contribute to the concep-tualisation and understanding of emotions in language. The facilitating, familiarising function of ’hb in Divinity is related to the more general evaluative power of emotion, particularly in relation to morality and social order (see Prinz 2005, 2006). Rozin et al. (1999) found that contempt, anger, and disgust are evoked by the violation of moral codes cross-culturally. The moral codes they examined were of the three main categories conceived by Shweder et al. (1997), namely ‘individual freedom/rights’, ‘community/hierarchy’, and ‘divinity/purity’. Ac-cording to Rozin et al. (1999), the evocation of the three motions was not arbitrary; rather, they found a specific mapping from moral violations to emotion. Whereas the violation of individual freedom/rights evoked contempt, the violation of community/hierarchy moral codes evoked anger, and the violation of divinity/purity codes evoked disgust (the ‘CAD triad hypothesis’). The study of Rozin et al. (1999) is one example of the approach that links emotion and morality, and hence emphasises the emotional basis of social order. In their study, violations of moral codes evoked negative emotions, but obedience to moral codes can similarly evoke positive emotions, such as love or joy. According to Prinz (2005), the link between emotion and mo-rality originated in the physical ground of emotional experience (i.e., body sensations), of which perception and evaluation lead to action (e.g., aggression in the case of anger or with-drawal in the case of disgust). This approach is compatible with the discussion of the basic physical and cultural experience in 6.2.2 above. The use of the commanded ’hb in Divinity is enabled through the familiar (physical) expe-rience of affectionate, intimate primary kin relationships, which are generally positively con-noted, and hence may very likely entail a positive, desirable model of social interactions. Ad-herence and obedience to God is the most significant theme of ancient Israelite society (as the biblical texts show) and they are associated with the model of kinship, which accommodates the most familiar and accessible relationships. ’hb is the link between the familiar, experiential, affective, intimate kin relationships and the more abstract concept of divinity and obedience to God. The commanded sense of ’hb is not exclusive to Divinity, but occurs in other contexts as well, for example in legislation texts, as in (9).

(9) a. wə’āhabtā lərē‘ăkā kāmôkā ‘You shall love your fellow human as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18)

b. wa’āhabtēm ’et-haggēr kî-gērîm hĕyîtēm bə’ereṣ miṣrāyim

‘You shall love the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.’ (Deut 10:19) A positive attitude toward or affinity with the fellow human and foreigner in (9) are central themes in the biblical texts and are therefore commanded (see Chapter 4). As in Divinity, the commandment in these cases shows that the association between the lover and the beloved is not necessarily obvious, but that the familiar intimacy and positive connotation of ’hb may facilitate it and increase its accessibility. As will be shown in the following section, this famil-iarising, facilitating function of ’hb expands to the other cultural domains as well. 6.3.3 Inanimate contexts In the domain of Divinity, it was argued, the use of ’hb as a commandment to love or adhere to God has a familiarising, facilitating function. Similar to its use in Divinity, ’hb is used in legislation texts and in wisdom texts as a commandment, in addition to as a prescription or a maxim, as in (10a–d). (10) a. ḥôśēk šibṭô śônē’ bənô wə’ōhăbô šiḥărô mûsār ‘He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.’ (Prov 13:24)

b. ’al-te’ĕhab šēnâ pen-tiwwārēš pəqaḥ ‘ênêkā śəbā‘-lāḥem ‘Do not love sleep lest you become poor, open your eyes and you will be satisfied with bread.’ (Prov 20:13)

c. ’îš-’ōhēb ḥŏkmâ yəśammaḥ ’ābîw ‘He who loves wisdom rejoices his father.’ (Prov 29:3) d. ’ōhēb kesep lō’-yiśba‘ kesep ‘He who loves money will not be satisfied with money.’ (Eccl 5:9).

The examples in 10 show how ’hb is linked to important social values, such as education, discipline, wisdom, and modesty. In (10a), strict discipline of sons by their fathers is justified by linking it to ’hb, i.e., fatherly love. In (10b), ’hb is used with negation, referring to sleep during the day which stands for laziness. The commandment to distance oneself from the af-finity with sleeping during the day emphasises the significance of hard work for one’s welfare. The maxim in (10c) expresses both the high value placed on wisdom as well as education by linking ’hb to wisdom and stressing the fruitful consequence of it in father-son relationships. Finally, (10d) stresses the disapproval of greed.



objects. In other words, the superiority of God does not need intensification because it is obvi-ous. The question is then why ’hb would be necessary in this context, or what it further con-tributes to it. The answer is that the use of ’hb in this context facilitates the commandment by making it more familiar and accessible. That is, the core affective meaning of ’hb and the intimacy and attachment it shares with kin relations have a familiarising function in the commanded use and, as a consequence, they contribute to the accessibility and acceptability of the commandment. The meaning of ’hb in the domain of Divinity is thus extended not only iconically (i.e., hierar-chically, from husband/father to wife/child), but also in a counter-iconic manner (i.e., from child to father), which stresses the mutual commitment between God and the people. The coun-ter-iconic use of ’hb retains the hierarchical relationships by its commanded use as well as the affection and intimacy that are inherent to ’hb. This facilitating, familiarising use of ’hb well illustrates the universal-cultural experiential origin of emotion conceptualisation that was discussed in Chapter 2, according to which both primary (physical) experience (e.g. physical sensation and proximity of mother-child relation-ship) and sociocultural experience (e.g. patriarchy, social hierarchy) contribute to the concep-tualisation and understanding of emotions in language. The facilitating, familiarising function of ’hb in Divinity is related to the more general evaluative power of emotion, particularly in relation to morality and social order (see Prinz 2005, 2006). Rozin et al. (1999) found that contempt, anger, and disgust are evoked by the violation of moral codes cross-culturally. The moral codes they examined were of the three main categories conceived by Shweder et al. (1997), namely ‘individual freedom/rights’, ‘community/hierarchy’, and ‘divinity/purity’. Ac-cording to Rozin et al. (1999), the evocation of the three motions was not arbitrary; rather, they found a specific mapping from moral violations to emotion. Whereas the violation of individual freedom/rights evoked contempt, the violation of community/hierarchy moral codes evoked anger, and the violation of divinity/purity codes evoked disgust (the ‘CAD triad hypothesis’). The study of Rozin et al. (1999) is one example of the approach that links emotion and morality, and hence emphasises the emotional basis of social order. In their study, violations of moral codes evoked negative emotions, but obedience to moral codes can similarly evoke positive emotions, such as love or joy. According to Prinz (2005), the link between emotion and mo-rality originated in the physical ground of emotional experience (i.e., body sensations), of which perception and evaluation lead to action (e.g., aggression in the case of anger or with-drawal in the case of disgust). This approach is compatible with the discussion of the basic physical and cultural experience in 6.2.2 above. The use of the commanded ’hb in Divinity is enabled through the familiar (physical) expe-rience of affectionate, intimate primary kin relationships, which are generally positively con-noted, and hence may very likely entail a positive, desirable model of social interactions. Ad-herence and obedience to God is the most significant theme of ancient Israelite society (as the biblical texts show) and they are associated with the model of kinship, which accommodates the most familiar and accessible relationships. ’hb is the link between the familiar, experiential, affective, intimate kin relationships and the more abstract concept of divinity and obedience to God. The commanded sense of ’hb is not exclusive to Divinity, but occurs in other contexts as well, for example in legislation texts, as in (9).

(9) a. wə’āhabtā lərē‘ăkā kāmôkā ‘You shall love your fellow human as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18)

b. wa’āhabtēm ’et-haggēr kî-gērîm hĕyîtēm bə’ereṣ miṣrāyim

‘You shall love the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.’ (Deut 10:19) A positive attitude toward or affinity with the fellow human and foreigner in (9) are central themes in the biblical texts and are therefore commanded (see Chapter 4). As in Divinity, the commandment in these cases shows that the association between the lover and the beloved is not necessarily obvious, but that the familiar intimacy and positive connotation of ’hb may facilitate it and increase its accessibility. As will be shown in the following section, this famil-iarising, facilitating function of ’hb expands to the other cultural domains as well. 6.3.3 Inanimate contexts In the domain of Divinity, it was argued, the use of ’hb as a commandment to love or adhere to God has a familiarising, facilitating function. Similar to its use in Divinity, ’hb is used in legislation texts and in wisdom texts as a commandment, in addition to as a prescription or a maxim, as in (10a–d). (10) a. ḥôśēk šibṭô śônē’ bənô wə’ōhăbô šiḥărô mûsār ‘He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.’ (Prov 13:24)

b. ’al-te’ĕhab šēnâ pen-tiwwārēš pəqaḥ ‘ênêkā śəbā‘-lāḥem ‘Do not love sleep lest you become poor, open your eyes and you will be satisfied with bread.’ (Prov 20:13)

c. ’îš-’ōhēb ḥŏkmâ yəśammaḥ ’ābîw ‘He who loves wisdom rejoices his father.’ (Prov 29:3) d. ’ōhēb kesep lō’-yiśba‘ kesep ‘He who loves money will not be satisfied with money.’ (Eccl 5:9).

The examples in 10 show how ’hb is linked to important social values, such as education, discipline, wisdom, and modesty. In (10a), strict discipline of sons by their fathers is justified by linking it to ’hb, i.e., fatherly love. In (10b), ’hb is used with negation, referring to sleep during the day which stands for laziness. The commandment to distance oneself from the af-finity with sleeping during the day emphasises the significance of hard work for one’s welfare. The maxim in (10c) expresses both the high value placed on wisdom as well as education by linking ’hb to wisdom and stressing the fruitful consequence of it in father-son relationships. Finally, (10d) stresses the disapproval of greed.


Chapter 6 ׀ 120

The texts of these examples (amongst many others) convey notable values by their inclusion of ’hb, either positively or negatively. The affective/intimate core of ’hb facilitates the pre-scriptions or maxims that are conveyed in a similar way to the facilitation of the commanded ’hb in Divinity as argued in 6.3.2. In these contexts in which the beloved is often inanimate, social hierarchy is irrelevant, but the values and the prescribed conduct that are conveyed are highly relevant to the biblical social order. The use of ’hb in these contexts can be seen as a complement to the use of ’hb in the interpersonal and divine contexts. In the interpersonal and divine contexts, ’hb encodes the most significant relationships of the society; in inanimate con-texts, it stresses highly significant values to the society. These three context categories together reflect the ideal social order as expressed in the biblical texts. 6.4 Conclusion The examination of ’hb against the sociocultural background of ancient Israel yielded correla-tions between the very basic and intimate kin relationships (such as marriage and parenthood) and the prototypical, sociocultural, hierarchical use of ’hb. Kinship, it was argued, is not only the kernel of the sociocultural structure, but also the conceptual source of the use of ’hb in domains with different degrees of intimacy. Kinship as the conceptual source of the use of ’hb also underlies the facilitative role this lexeme plays in inanimate contexts (i.e., where the be-loved is inanimate). The results of the analyses support the working hypothesis that was presented in Chapter 4, and is presented here again:



The results show that the social-hierarchical conceptualisation of ’hb originates from the an-cient Israelite culture rather than its core semantics (i.e. affection/affinity/attachment) and is driven by the particular biblical contexts. Moreover, ’hb plays an emphatic, evaluative role in BH by stressing the most significant relationships and values of the society and by facilitating the prescription of such values. This provides further evidence for the observations in Chapters 4 and 5 regarding the association between ’hb and conduct or social interaction, which, among other things, was indicated by the differing degrees of volition and transitivity in the use of this lexeme. There are at least two interwoven cognitive levels through which the claims in the present chapter can be motivated, namely a universal and a sociocultural experience (see discussion in Chapter 2). In effect, the particular utilisation of ’hb in BH demonstrates a case of synthesis between the two, to use Kövecses & Palmer’s (1999) term in this regard. Kövecses & Palmer (1999: 252–55) advocated a synthesis between the (physiological/psychological) universal

view and the social-constructive view (i.e., social scenarios) in the conceptualisation of emo-tions. The conceptual transfer involved in the polysemous use of ’hb can be explained on the basis of cognitive processes (imagery) and, in particular, the experience-based idea of embod-iment that was discussed in Chapter 2. Accordingly, the basic (physical) experiential elements involved in primary relationships are embodied and involved in the conception of more abstract experiences, such as relationship with God. Sociocultural experience provides the broad setting in which this process operates, the unique context of the ancient Israelite culture. ’hb dependence ’hb Figure 6.4: Commitment model of prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb and mutual dependence

’hb NEG-’hb Figure 6.5: Evaluation model where ’hb or its negation

mark ideal and disapproved sociocultural values This results in two main sociocultural models that are generally titled here as (i) Commit-ment and (ii) Evaluation. The first encompasses interpersonal and human-divine relationships and social interactions and is based on the kinship structure in Figure 6.3. The latter consists of affinities, conduct, and activities not necessarily related to interpersonal relationships. Fig-ures 6.4 and 6.5 illustrate these models. The thick arrow on the right side in Figure 6.4, marks the prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb, where the lover has a higher social status than the beloved. The thin arrow on the left side marks atypical events, where the lover has a lower status than the beloved. Both categories, high and low social status, are connected to each other through a sociocultural mutual dependence. The (non)hierarchical use of ’hb and the mutual

high social status

low social status

humans and God

idealisation of

inanimate object/ conduct

disapproval of




The texts of these examples (amongst many others) convey notable values by their inclusion of ’hb, either positively or negatively. The affective/intimate core of ’hb facilitates the pre-scriptions or maxims that are conveyed in a similar way to the facilitation of the commanded ’hb in Divinity as argued in 6.3.2. In these contexts in which the beloved is often inanimate, social hierarchy is irrelevant, but the values and the prescribed conduct that are conveyed are highly relevant to the biblical social order. The use of ’hb in these contexts can be seen as a complement to the use of ’hb in the interpersonal and divine contexts. In the interpersonal and divine contexts, ’hb encodes the most significant relationships of the society; in inanimate con-texts, it stresses highly significant values to the society. These three context categories together reflect the ideal social order as expressed in the biblical texts. 6.4 Conclusion The examination of ’hb against the sociocultural background of ancient Israel yielded correla-tions between the very basic and intimate kin relationships (such as marriage and parenthood) and the prototypical, sociocultural, hierarchical use of ’hb. Kinship, it was argued, is not only the kernel of the sociocultural structure, but also the conceptual source of the use of ’hb in domains with different degrees of intimacy. Kinship as the conceptual source of the use of ’hb also underlies the facilitative role this lexeme plays in inanimate contexts (i.e., where the be-loved is inanimate). The results of the analyses support the working hypothesis that was presented in Chapter 4, and is presented here again:



The results show that the social-hierarchical conceptualisation of ’hb originates from the an-cient Israelite culture rather than its core semantics (i.e. affection/affinity/attachment) and is driven by the particular biblical contexts. Moreover, ’hb plays an emphatic, evaluative role in BH by stressing the most significant relationships and values of the society and by facilitating the prescription of such values. This provides further evidence for the observations in Chapters 4 and 5 regarding the association between ’hb and conduct or social interaction, which, among other things, was indicated by the differing degrees of volition and transitivity in the use of this lexeme. There are at least two interwoven cognitive levels through which the claims in the present chapter can be motivated, namely a universal and a sociocultural experience (see discussion in Chapter 2). In effect, the particular utilisation of ’hb in BH demonstrates a case of synthesis between the two, to use Kövecses & Palmer’s (1999) term in this regard. Kövecses & Palmer (1999: 252–55) advocated a synthesis between the (physiological/psychological) universal

view and the social-constructive view (i.e., social scenarios) in the conceptualisation of emo-tions. The conceptual transfer involved in the polysemous use of ’hb can be explained on the basis of cognitive processes (imagery) and, in particular, the experience-based idea of embod-iment that was discussed in Chapter 2. Accordingly, the basic (physical) experiential elements involved in primary relationships are embodied and involved in the conception of more abstract experiences, such as relationship with God. Sociocultural experience provides the broad setting in which this process operates, the unique context of the ancient Israelite culture. ’hb dependence ’hb Figure 6.4: Commitment model of prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb and mutual dependence

’hb NEG-’hb Figure 6.5: Evaluation model where ’hb or its negation

mark ideal and disapproved sociocultural values This results in two main sociocultural models that are generally titled here as (i) Commit-ment and (ii) Evaluation. The first encompasses interpersonal and human-divine relationships and social interactions and is based on the kinship structure in Figure 6.3. The latter consists of affinities, conduct, and activities not necessarily related to interpersonal relationships. Fig-ures 6.4 and 6.5 illustrate these models. The thick arrow on the right side in Figure 6.4, marks the prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb, where the lover has a higher social status than the beloved. The thin arrow on the left side marks atypical events, where the lover has a lower status than the beloved. Both categories, high and low social status, are connected to each other through a sociocultural mutual dependence. The (non)hierarchical use of ’hb and the mutual

high social status

low social status

humans and God

idealisation of


disapproval of



Chapter 6 ׀ 122

dependence together constitue a complex array of commitment relationships. Figure 6.5 shows the evaluative use of ’hb, as a moral marker when the beloved is inanimate. While the lover may be human or divine, the evaluation of the beloved is indicated by the presence/absence of negation collocated with ’hb. The relevance of the social-constructionist approach to the present investigation was dis-cussed earlier with examples from Rosaldo (1983), Lutz (1982, 1988), and Marmelstein (2003). As was shown throughout this chapter, the sociocultural aspects underlying the use of ’hb are indeed indispensable for a comprehensive understanding of this lexeme. Basic experience is the means through which these sociocultural aspects can be expressed in the language, and together they constitute the synthesis. Chapter 8 presents the work of such a synthesis with the use of ḥen ‘favour’ (another term from the semantic field of affection in BH) in a particular construction. In the following chapter, the general socialness in the use of ’hb will be compared with the use of five other concepts in BH. These are the emotion of sadness (multiple lexemes), sensory perception (r’h ‘see’ and šm‘ ‘hear’), powerful contact activities (nkh, hlm, and ḥbṭ ‘hit/strike’), and destruction (hrg ‘kill’). The purpose of such a comparison is, in the first place, to find out whether ’hb is unique in its prototypical social (hierarchical) use, or whether this is a more general pattern in BH. A second aim concerns volitionality. In the use of ’hb, volitionality was observed mostly in the cultural domain of Divinity, based on the commandment-obedience relationship ’hb denotes in this domain, and is part of the overall character of ’hb in the present examination. Examining this property in comparison with other concepts could thus provide a perspective to, and more insight about, the relation between ’hb, volitionality, and transitivity.

Chapter 7. ’hb and other concepts in BH 7.1 Introduction In the previous chapters, it was shown how the use of ’hb in BH is characterised by two main domain-specific hierarchical patterns, which are based on the social status of the lover and the beloved. Two related observations further contribute to the general association of this lexeme with socialness, namely volitionality (entailing transitivity) and the emphatic, evaluative role’hb plays in BH. The observed patterns were further discussed in the previous chapter, where it was argued that they constitute the basis of two sociocultural models (Figures 6.4 and 6.5). The present chapter explores whether the association with socialness is unique to ’hb, or whether it is common to other concepts in BH as well. More generally, the argument that, although it is hierarchically used, this lexeme is not inherently hierarchical highlights the ne-cessity in examining the use of other lexemes in order to find out whether this usage of ’hb represents a more general pattern in BH or whether its relation to the sociocultural order is unique. The hierarchical character of ancient Israelite culture, as reflected in the biblical texts, suggests that the usage of ’hb may not be unique in this respect but that other concepts may also be used in a similar way. It is, therefore, necessary to establish the extent of socialness and hierarchy in the use of ’hb in relation to the use of other concepts. Moreover, it is necessary to explore what sociocultural patterns best characterise ’hb. Finally, the consideration of ’hb as a complex social-interactive concept that reaches beyond an emotive inner state, as the present thesis does, requires an examination of its use also in relation to other non-emotive concepts. The present chapter is a first step in this direction, and takes the form of a comparison with other concepts. The aim of this comparison is to provide a broader perspective for the examination of ’hb and its conceptual association with the sociocultural order. Since the focus of the present study is on ’hb and its particular role in the Hebrew Bible, this broader perspective is a useful means for developing a better understanding of ’hb in the biblical context; nevertheless, the compari-son is based on the findings with this lexeme, namely the outlook is that of the use of ’hb. The present chapter offers a methodological approach that can be further developed in future stud-ies, rather than a decisive conclusion. In spite of this, it still has an important exploratory value. The present chapter presents the description and results of a comparison between the use of ’hb and that of five other concepts in BH, namely ‘sadness’ (expressed by the lexemes k’b, ‘ṣb, ygh, ṣrr), ‘eyesight’ (r’h), ‘hearing’ (šm‘), ‘hitting’/’striking’ (expressed by the lexemes nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ), and ‘killing’ (hrg).29 The underlying motivation for the inclusion of these concepts is twofold. First, it seems obvious to compare the use of ’hb to that of another emotion concept, which is not directly associated with it. Near synonyms of ’hb occur with much less frequency and usually encode but one aspect of love/affection/desire/affinity (see Bosman 2011). In ad-dition, Chapter 8 presents a case study of ḥen ‘favour’ in its use within an idiomatic fixed

29 Lexemes of ‘sadness’ in BH may be translated as ‘grief’, ‘sorrow’, ‘distress’, etc. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise noted, the term henceforth used here is ‘sadness’. Like ’hb-verbs, verbs of sadness can mark person, time/aspect, and number, as, for example, ne‘əṣab ‘sad.3S.PERF’.


dependence together constitue a complex array of commitment relationships. Figure 6.5 shows the evaluative use of ’hb, as a moral marker when the beloved is inanimate. While the lover may be human or divine, the evaluation of the beloved is indicated by the presence/absence of negation collocated with ’hb. The relevance of the social-constructionist approach to the present investigation was dis-cussed earlier with examples from Rosaldo (1983), Lutz (1982, 1988), and Marmelstein (2003). As was shown throughout this chapter, the sociocultural aspects underlying the use of ’hb are indeed indispensable for a comprehensive understanding of this lexeme. Basic experience is the means through which these sociocultural aspects can be expressed in the language, and together they constitute the synthesis. Chapter 8 presents the work of such a synthesis with the use of ḥen ‘favour’ (another term from the semantic field of affection in BH) in a particular construction. In the following chapter, the general socialness in the use of ’hb will be compared with the use of five other concepts in BH. These are the emotion of sadness (multiple lexemes), sensory perception (r’h ‘see’ and šm‘ ‘hear’), powerful contact activities (nkh, hlm, and ḥbṭ ‘hit/strike’), and destruction (hrg ‘kill’). The purpose of such a comparison is, in the first place, to find out whether ’hb is unique in its prototypical social (hierarchical) use, or whether this is a more general pattern in BH. A second aim concerns volitionality. In the use of ’hb, volitionality was observed mostly in the cultural domain of Divinity, based on the commandment-obedience relationship ’hb denotes in this domain, and is part of the overall character of ’hb in the present examination. Examining this property in comparison with other concepts could thus provide a perspective to, and more insight about, the relation between ’hb, volitionality, and transitivity.

Chapter 7. ’hb and other concepts in BH 7.1 Introduction In the previous chapters, it was shown how the use of ’hb in BH is characterised by two main domain-specific hierarchical patterns, which are based on the social status of the lover and the beloved. Two related observations further contribute to the general association of this lexeme with socialness, namely volitionality (entailing transitivity) and the emphatic, evaluative role’hb plays in BH. The observed patterns were further discussed in the previous chapter, where it was argued that they constitute the basis of two sociocultural models (Figures 6.4 and 6.5). The present chapter explores whether the association with socialness is unique to ’hb, or whether it is common to other concepts in BH as well. More generally, the argument that, although it is hierarchically used, this lexeme is not inherently hierarchical highlights the ne-cessity in examining the use of other lexemes in order to find out whether this usage of ’hb represents a more general pattern in BH or whether its relation to the sociocultural order is unique. The hierarchical character of ancient Israelite culture, as reflected in the biblical texts, suggests that the usage of ’hb may not be unique in this respect but that other concepts may also be used in a similar way. It is, therefore, necessary to establish the extent of socialness and hierarchy in the use of ’hb in relation to the use of other concepts. Moreover, it is necessary to explore what sociocultural patterns best characterise ’hb. Finally, the consideration of ’hb as a complex social-interactive concept that reaches beyond an emotive inner state, as the present thesis does, requires an examination of its use also in relation to other non-emotive concepts. The present chapter is a first step in this direction, and takes the form of a comparison with other concepts. The aim of this comparison is to provide a broader perspective for the examination of ’hb and its conceptual association with the sociocultural order. Since the focus of the present study is on ’hb and its particular role in the Hebrew Bible, this broader perspective is a useful means for developing a better understanding of ’hb in the biblical context; nevertheless, the compari-son is based on the findings with this lexeme, namely the outlook is that of the use of ’hb. The present chapter offers a methodological approach that can be further developed in future stud-ies, rather than a decisive conclusion. In spite of this, it still has an important exploratory value. The present chapter presents the description and results of a comparison between the use of ’hb and that of five other concepts in BH, namely ‘sadness’ (expressed by the lexemes k’b, ‘ṣb, ygh, ṣrr), ‘eyesight’ (r’h), ‘hearing’ (šm‘), ‘hitting’/’striking’ (expressed by the lexemes nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ), and ‘killing’ (hrg).29 The underlying motivation for the inclusion of these concepts is twofold. First, it seems obvious to compare the use of ’hb to that of another emotion concept, which is not directly associated with it. Near synonyms of ’hb occur with much less frequency and usually encode but one aspect of love/affection/desire/affinity (see Bosman 2011). In ad-dition, Chapter 8 presents a case study of ḥen ‘favour’ in its use within an idiomatic fixed

29 Lexemes of ‘sadness’ in BH may be translated as ‘grief’, ‘sorrow’, ‘distress’, etc. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise noted, the term henceforth used here is ‘sadness’. Like ’hb-verbs, verbs of sadness can mark person, time/aspect, and number, as, for example, ne‘əṣab ‘sad.3S.PERF’.


Chapter 7 ׀ 124

construction, which is semantically related to affection. Earlier studies have shown the proto-typical hierarchical use of anger and fear in BH, primarily in relation to God, which is mani-fested by the dominant occurrence of God as the experiencer of anger and humans as the ex-periencers of fear (see, for example, van Wolde 2008: 8; Schlimm, 2008: 83, 86–89; on anger see Grant 2010, 2011; and on fear see Kroeze, 2004: 110–11). Social hierarchy to some extent was also evident in the use of ‘hate’ terms (Botta 2013; Mirguet 2016). More specifically, semantic asymmetry was found in the use of terms of anger (Grant 2011) and jealousy (Am-zallag 2015). As for gender-based hierarchy, Kruger (2015: 414) argued that “apart from anger and perhaps love, it seems that the HB (Hebrew Bible, RV) is predominantly gender neutral”. As an illustration of his claim, Kruger referred to the expression of sadness as manifested in crying, both by men and women. It is, however, not clear from his claim whether crying is equally ascribed to men and women, or whether it more frequently occurs in one of these cat-egories. To the best of my knowledge, lexemes of sadness in BH were not examined in terms of social relations and (gender) hierarchy. Furthermore, in contrast to ’hb and the four other concepts (r’h ‘eyesight’, šm‘ ‘hearing’, nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’, and hrg ‘killing’), which are more frequently denoted by verbs than by nouns, sadness in BH is more frequently expressed by nouns (59%) than by verbs (41%), as Figure 7.1 shows.

Figure 7.1: Proportion of verbs (V) and nouns (N) in the use of ’hb and

lexemes of other concepts in BH

The relatively lower frequency of verbs to denote sadness in comparison with ’hb raises the possibility that lexemes of sadness are less associated with social interaction and more related to (individual) inner state than is true for the use of ’hb. Hence, the overall use of sadness lexemes may be less socially hierarchical than the use of ’hb. The second reason to include the above-mentioned concepts concerns the occurrence of vo-litionality in the use of ’hb, primarily in the cultural domain of Divinity, that was discussed in Chapter 4 (4.3.1). The existence of volitionality in this domain not only signifies a conceptual association between ’hb and volition, but also between volition and social hierarchy. In divin-ity, the differing degrees of volitionality are the basis of the asymmetric meaning of ’hb (i.e., choice/preference vs. obedience to commandment), with which ’hb expresses the hierarchical

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Love Sad See Hear Hit Kill

V N

relationship between God and humans. In other domains, the existence of volitionality is in most of the cases not straightforwardly observed, as ’hb more usually denotes spontaneous affection, attraction, or affinity. And yet, the clear existence of volitionality in the domain of Divinity suggests that it may be conceptually related to ’hb, regardless of the clear hierarchical relationship involved in Divinity (see 4.4). In the previous chapter, volitionality in the domain of Divinity was explained by the conceptual link between deity and kinsmen. A comparison with other biblical concepts can specify the nature and extent of volition as a conceptual com-ponent of ’hb. The six concepts compared here represent four different semantic categories, namely emotion (i.e., ’hb and the lexemes of sadness), sensory perception (i.e., r’h ‘eyesight’ and šmʿ ‘hear-ing’), powerful contact (i.e., nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’), and destruction (i.e., hrg ‘kill-ing’). On a general scale, emotion can be expected to be similar to or perhaps less volitional than perception (i.e., ‘eyesight’ and ‘hearing’ are equally low in volitionality as is emotion; other concepts, such as ‘looking’ and ‘listening’, which involve cognitive activity, entail a higher degree of volitionality and are not included in the present analysis). Emotion and sen-sory perception can be expected to be less volitional than powerful contact, while destruction can be expected to have the highest degree of volitionality among the four categories. This prediction is based on prototype approaches to agentivity and semantic transitivity, of which volition is one of the main components (see Croft 1991; Langacker 1991; Givón 2001; Mal-chukov 2005; Næss 2007). Transitivity in the use of ’hb in relation to prototypical transitivity was the topic of Chapter 5. Section 7.2 concerns the relevance of volition for the present thesis, and briefly describes the use of the compared concepts in BH. This is followed by the compar-ison with ’hb in section 7.3. 7.2 Biblical concepts unrelated to affection 7.2.1 Sadness The dataset of sadness is somewhat exceptional for two reasons. The first, already mentioned above, is the more frequent use of nouns than verbs in denoting sadness-events. The second reason is that the descriptive lexemes of sadness occur relatively less frequently than the lex-emes of the other concepts included in the present examination. The relative infrequency of sadness lexemes, however, does not necessarily indicate that sadness is less prominent in BH; rather, sadness and its (near) synonyms, such as distress, are often encoded by figurative and implicit expressions, as well as by descriptions of diverse ways for the expression of sadness, such as crying (see, for example, Mumford 1992 and King 2010 on the encoding of distress). Moreover, the distinction between the descriptive and figurative expressions of sadness is not always clear-cut, as lexemes of sadness often convey physical distress or pain (Mirguet 2016). This can be illustrated by the use of ‘ṣb, which occurs in 38% of the total occurrences of sadness lexemes in the dataset. The stem ‘ṣb has a number of different meanings, including physical pain, hard work, power, and mental pain (e.g., regret, sadness, sorrow, turmoil). The inflection of the verb and the context usually provide the correct interpretation, though in some cases the meaning is somewhat ambiguous, as in (1) where ‘ṣb may encode both physical pain and


’hb and other concepts in BH 125 ׀

construction, which is semantically related to affection. Earlier studies have shown the proto-typical hierarchical use of anger and fear in BH, primarily in relation to God, which is mani-fested by the dominant occurrence of God as the experiencer of anger and humans as the ex-periencers of fear (see, for example, van Wolde 2008: 8; Schlimm, 2008: 83, 86–89; on anger see Grant 2010, 2011; and on fear see Kroeze, 2004: 110–11). Social hierarchy to some extent was also evident in the use of ‘hate’ terms (Botta 2013; Mirguet 2016). More specifically, semantic asymmetry was found in the use of terms of anger (Grant 2011) and jealousy (Am-zallag 2015). As for gender-based hierarchy, Kruger (2015: 414) argued that “apart from anger and perhaps love, it seems that the HB (Hebrew Bible, RV) is predominantly gender neutral”. As an illustration of his claim, Kruger referred to the expression of sadness as manifested in crying, both by men and women. It is, however, not clear from his claim whether crying is equally ascribed to men and women, or whether it more frequently occurs in one of these cat-egories. To the best of my knowledge, lexemes of sadness in BH were not examined in terms of social relations and (gender) hierarchy. Furthermore, in contrast to ’hb and the four other concepts (r’h ‘eyesight’, šm‘ ‘hearing’, nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’, and hrg ‘killing’), which are more frequently denoted by verbs than by nouns, sadness in BH is more frequently expressed by nouns (59%) than by verbs (41%), as Figure 7.1 shows.

Figure 7.1: Proportion of verbs (V) and nouns (N) in the use of ’hb and

lexemes of other concepts in BH

The relatively lower frequency of verbs to denote sadness in comparison with ’hb raises the possibility that lexemes of sadness are less associated with social interaction and more related to (individual) inner state than is true for the use of ’hb. Hence, the overall use of sadness lexemes may be less socially hierarchical than the use of ’hb. The second reason to include the above-mentioned concepts concerns the occurrence of vo-litionality in the use of ’hb, primarily in the cultural domain of Divinity, that was discussed in Chapter 4 (4.3.1). The existence of volitionality in this domain not only signifies a conceptual association between ’hb and volition, but also between volition and social hierarchy. In divin-ity, the differing degrees of volitionality are the basis of the asymmetric meaning of ’hb (i.e., choice/preference vs. obedience to commandment), with which ’hb expresses the hierarchical

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2


V N

relationship between God and humans. In other domains, the existence of volitionality is in most of the cases not straightforwardly observed, as ’hb more usually denotes spontaneous affection, attraction, or affinity. And yet, the clear existence of volitionality in the domain of Divinity suggests that it may be conceptually related to ’hb, regardless of the clear hierarchical relationship involved in Divinity (see 4.4). In the previous chapter, volitionality in the domain of Divinity was explained by the conceptual link between deity and kinsmen. A comparison with other biblical concepts can specify the nature and extent of volition as a conceptual com-ponent of ’hb. The six concepts compared here represent four different semantic categories, namely emotion (i.e., ’hb and the lexemes of sadness), sensory perception (i.e., r’h ‘eyesight’ and šmʿ ‘hear-ing’), powerful contact (i.e., nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’), and destruction (i.e., hrg ‘kill-ing’). On a general scale, emotion can be expected to be similar to or perhaps less volitional than perception (i.e., ‘eyesight’ and ‘hearing’ are equally low in volitionality as is emotion; other concepts, such as ‘looking’ and ‘listening’, which involve cognitive activity, entail a higher degree of volitionality and are not included in the present analysis). Emotion and sen-sory perception can be expected to be less volitional than powerful contact, while destruction can be expected to have the highest degree of volitionality among the four categories. This prediction is based on prototype approaches to agentivity and semantic transitivity, of which volition is one of the main components (see Croft 1991; Langacker 1991; Givón 2001; Mal-chukov 2005; Næss 2007). Transitivity in the use of ’hb in relation to prototypical transitivity was the topic of Chapter 5. Section 7.2 concerns the relevance of volition for the present thesis, and briefly describes the use of the compared concepts in BH. This is followed by the compar-ison with ’hb in section 7.3. 7.2 Biblical concepts unrelated to affection 7.2.1 Sadness The dataset of sadness is somewhat exceptional for two reasons. The first, already mentioned above, is the more frequent use of nouns than verbs in denoting sadness-events. The second reason is that the descriptive lexemes of sadness occur relatively less frequently than the lex-emes of the other concepts included in the present examination. The relative infrequency of sadness lexemes, however, does not necessarily indicate that sadness is less prominent in BH; rather, sadness and its (near) synonyms, such as distress, are often encoded by figurative and implicit expressions, as well as by descriptions of diverse ways for the expression of sadness, such as crying (see, for example, Mumford 1992 and King 2010 on the encoding of distress). Moreover, the distinction between the descriptive and figurative expressions of sadness is not always clear-cut, as lexemes of sadness often convey physical distress or pain (Mirguet 2016). This can be illustrated by the use of ‘ṣb, which occurs in 38% of the total occurrences of sadness lexemes in the dataset. The stem ‘ṣb has a number of different meanings, including physical pain, hard work, power, and mental pain (e.g., regret, sadness, sorrow, turmoil). The inflection of the verb and the context usually provide the correct interpretation, though in some cases the meaning is somewhat ambiguous, as in (1) where ‘ṣb may encode both physical pain and


Chapter 7 ׀ 126

sadness/sorrow. For the present analysis, only unambiguous occurrences of sadness lexemes are included, with a total of 47 occurrences. (1) wəhāyâ bəyôm hānî’aḥ yāhwəh ləkā mē’āṣbəkā ûmērogzekā ûmin-

hā‘ăbōdâ haqqāšâ ʾăšer ‘ubbad-bāk ‘On the day that Yhwh will give you rest from your pain/sorrow and from

your turmoil, and from the hard work that was worked upon you [that you were made to work].’ (Isa 14:3)

Sadness-events of the present dataset occur in the following five cultural domains, namely Divinity, Inanimate Abstract, Kinship, Social Relations, and Conduct/Activity. Figure 7.2 pre-sents the distribution over the different domains, ordered by frequency.

Figure 7.2: Proportions of sadness lexemes in cultural domains In the majority of the verbal occurrences (60%), the lexeme encodes the state of an experi-encer without a present cause in the clause. In three occurrences, there is also a stimu-lus/theme, a reason for, or a non-volitional cause of experienced sadness, as in (2). (2) a. ṣar-lî ‘ālêkā ’āḥî yəhônātān

‘I am distressed (suffering/grieving) over you, my brother Jonathan.’ (2 Sam 1:26)

b. ne‘ĕṣab hammelek ‘al-bənô ‘The king was grieving over his son.’ (2 Sam 19:3) c. bēn ḥākām yəśammaḥ-’āb ûbēn kəsîl tûgat ’immô ‘A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish son is the sorrow of his mother.’ (Prov 10:1) In (2a), David laments the death of his friend Jonathan, and in (2b) David’s grief over his dead son Absalom is expressed. The relation between the experience (David’s sorrow) and the theme (Jonathan, Absalom) is expressed by the preposition ‘al ‘on’, ‘upon’, ‘over’, ‘about’. In (2c), the sadness of a mother is said to be caused by the foolishness of her son.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

DIV INABS KIN SOC COND

In eight of the occurrences (32% of all sadness verbs), the verbs are causative, either in the hif‘il or the pi‘el form (binyan), and have the semantic role of Agent.30 In these occurrences, the object of sadness is clearly affected by the agent and can be interpreted as patient, as in (3) with the stem ygh in the hif‘il (causative) form. (3) kî-yāhwəh hôgāh ‘al rōb-pəšā‘êhā ‘For Yhwh afflicted her for the multitude of her sins.’ (Lam 1:5)

Figure 7.3: Proportions of gender/animacy Figure 7.4: Proportions of gender/animacy of experiencer (EX) and theme/stimulus of agent (AG) and patient (PAT) in the use (TH) in the use of sadness events of sadness events

Although the cause of sadness may be volitional (causative), as in (3), the experience of sadness is always non-volitional, entails a reaction to stimuli or an instigated cause. Figure 7.5 presents the three types of volition in the the use of sadness lexemes, i.e. volitional cause, non-volitional cause, and non-volitional experience. A cause of sadness may be also present in nominal clauses, as in (4), or may be clear from the context without its grammatical presence in the clause. (4) lō’-yērēd bənî ‘îmmākem kî-‘āḥîw mēt wəhû’ ləbaddô nîš’ār ûqərā’āhû ’āsôn badderek ’ăšer tēlkû-bāh, wəhôradtem ’et-śêbātî bəyāgôn šə’ôlâ ‘My son shall not go down with you(plural) because his brother is dead and he is the only one left, and if harm happens to him on the way in which you go

you would bring down my gray hair (old age) with sorrow to Sheol (to the grave)’. (Gen 42:38)

The event in (4) is counter-hierarchical, as it is the sons of Jacob (the speaker) who would cause sorrow to him if they would take their young brother with them to Egypt. In other occur-rences, and in occurrences with causative verbs, sadness events are more often hierarchical (44%) than counter-hierarchical (19%). In such occurrences, the causer of sadness has a higher 30 The Hebrew system of verb formation is based on seven main structures or templates (binyanim, lit. ‘build-ings/structures’), which encode different types of (volitional) activity (e.g., (non)causative) and voice. Verbs are distributed over the different structures according to their semantic agency and voice features.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

DEI M F MG INAN

EX TH

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

DEI M F MG INAN

AG PAT



sadness/sorrow. For the present analysis, only unambiguous occurrences of sadness lexemes are included, with a total of 47 occurrences. (1) wəhāyâ bəyôm hānî’aḥ yāhwəh ləkā mē’āṣbəkā ûmērogzekā ûmin-

hā‘ăbōdâ haqqāšâ ʾăšer ‘ubbad-bāk ‘On the day that Yhwh will give you rest from your pain/sorrow and from

your turmoil, and from the hard work that was worked upon you [that you were made to work].’ (Isa 14:3)

Sadness-events of the present dataset occur in the following five cultural domains, namely Divinity, Inanimate Abstract, Kinship, Social Relations, and Conduct/Activity. Figure 7.2 pre-sents the distribution over the different domains, ordered by frequency.

Figure 7.2: Proportions of sadness lexemes in cultural domains In the majority of the verbal occurrences (60%), the lexeme encodes the state of an experi-encer without a present cause in the clause. In three occurrences, there is also a stimu-lus/theme, a reason for, or a non-volitional cause of experienced sadness, as in (2). (2) a. ṣar-lî ‘ālêkā ’āḥî yəhônātān

‘I am distressed (suffering/grieving) over you, my brother Jonathan.’ (2 Sam 1:26)

b. ne‘ĕṣab hammelek ‘al-bənô ‘The king was grieving over his son.’ (2 Sam 19:3) c. bēn ḥākām yəśammaḥ-’āb ûbēn kəsîl tûgat ’immô ‘A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish son is the sorrow of his mother.’ (Prov 10:1) In (2a), David laments the death of his friend Jonathan, and in (2b) David’s grief over his dead son Absalom is expressed. The relation between the experience (David’s sorrow) and the theme (Jonathan, Absalom) is expressed by the preposition ‘al ‘on’, ‘upon’, ‘over’, ‘about’. In (2c), the sadness of a mother is said to be caused by the foolishness of her son.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

DIV INABS KIN SOC COND

In eight of the occurrences (32% of all sadness verbs), the verbs are causative, either in the hif‘il or the pi‘el form (binyan), and have the semantic role of Agent.30 In these occurrences, the object of sadness is clearly affected by the agent and can be interpreted as patient, as in (3) with the stem ygh in the hif‘il (causative) form. (3) kî-yāhwəh hôgāh ‘al rōb-pəšā‘êhā ‘For Yhwh afflicted her for the multitude of her sins.’ (Lam 1:5)

Figure 7.3: Proportions of gender/animacy Figure 7.4: Proportions of gender/animacy of experiencer (EX) and theme/stimulus of agent (AG) and patient (PAT) in the use (TH) in the use of sadness events of sadness events

Although the cause of sadness may be volitional (causative), as in (3), the experience of sadness is always non-volitional, entails a reaction to stimuli or an instigated cause. Figure 7.5 presents the three types of volition in the the use of sadness lexemes, i.e. volitional cause, non-volitional cause, and non-volitional experience. A cause of sadness may be also present in nominal clauses, as in (4), or may be clear from the context without its grammatical presence in the clause. (4) lō’-yērēd bənî ‘îmmākem kî-‘āḥîw mēt wəhû’ ləbaddô nîš’ār ûqərā’āhû ’āsôn badderek ’ăšer tēlkû-bāh, wəhôradtem ’et-śêbātî bəyāgôn šə’ôlâ ‘My son shall not go down with you(plural) because his brother is dead and he is the only one left, and if harm happens to him on the way in which you go

you would bring down my gray hair (old age) with sorrow to Sheol (to the grave)’. (Gen 42:38)

The event in (4) is counter-hierarchical, as it is the sons of Jacob (the speaker) who would cause sorrow to him if they would take their young brother with them to Egypt. In other occur-rences, and in occurrences with causative verbs, sadness events are more often hierarchical (44%) than counter-hierarchical (19%). In such occurrences, the causer of sadness has a higher 30 The Hebrew system of verb formation is based on seven main structures or templates (binyanim, lit. ‘build-ings/structures’), which encode different types of (volitional) activity (e.g., (non)causative) and voice. Verbs are distributed over the different structures according to their semantic agency and voice features.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

DEI M F MG INAN

EX TH

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

DEI M F MG INAN

AG PAT


Chapter 7 ׀ 128

social status (e.g. God, father) than the experiencer (e.g. people, son). Non-hierarchical events account for 37% of all sadness events. Figure 7.6 presents the three types of hierarchy in the use of sadness lexemes.

Figure 7.5: Proportions of volition in Figure 7.6: Proportions of hierarchy in sadness events sadness events 7.2.2 Sensory perception (r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm’ ‘hearing’) Each of the two lexemes that represent sensory perception, r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’, occur in BH much more frequently than ’hb. For the purposes of comparison, small samples of 100 occurrences of each were compiled as datasets. The samples were not randomly re-trieved, but were matched to the percentage of the occurrences of ’hb in the different biblical books. That is, the percentage per book of the occurrences of ’hb were used as the criterion for the frequencies of the perception lexemes per book in the datasets. Such matching could not always be precise, as the frequency in each book varies per lexeme and concept, but in this way the frequencies of r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ in the books included in the datasets are as similar as possible to the frequency of ’hb in these books. The reason for following this crite-rion is to attempt to compare the lexemes in as similar as possible contexts to those of ’hb. Besides the sheer sensory perception that r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ encode, both lex-emes also often encode cognitive activities or processes. Examples of the former are ‘realise’, ‘notice’, and ‘know’, as in (5a); examples of the latter are ‘listen’ and ‘obey’, as in (5b). (5) a. wayyōmer rə’ēh rêaḥ bənî kərêaḥ śādeh ’ăšer bērăkô yāhwəh

‘He said: see, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field, which Yhwh has blessed.’ (Gen 27:27)

b. hābâ nērdâ wənābəlâ šām śəpātām ’ăšer lō’ yišmə‘û ’îš śəpat rē‘ēhû ‘Let us go down and confuse there their language so that they may not understand (lit. ‘hearing’) one another’s language.’ (Gen 11:7)

The imperative form of r’h in (5a) expresses Isaac’s (at that time already blind) confirmation of his son’s identity after smelling his clothes. In (5b), šm‘ denotes understanding of speech. For the aim of the present comparison, only lexemes that encode sensory perception were

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

Vol Cause Non-VolCause

Non-Vol Ex 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Hier Counter-Hier Non-Hier

included in the datasets, and cognitive activities encoded by the same lexemes were left out, so that a clear distinction between emotive experience and sensory perception could be made.

Figure 7.7: The distribution (%) of r’h ‘eyesight’ and šmʿ ‘hearing’ in cultural domains Both r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ most frequently occur in the cultural domain of Divinity (see Figure 7.7). In general, the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ reflects social hierarchy in about 42% of its occurrences, that is, the experiencer has a higher social status than the actor/entity which is seen. This figure is much higher in the use of šm‘ ‘hearing’, with 80% of its occurrences being hierarchical events. In the use of r’h ‘eyesight’, the percentage of counter-hierarchical events is higher than that of its non-hierarchical use (31% and 26%, respectively). Figures 7.8 presents the proportions of the three hierarchy types in the use of r’h ‘eyesight’, Figure 7.9 of šm‘ ‘hearing’.

Figure 7.8: Proportions of hierarchical use Figure 7.9: Proportions of hierarchical use of r’h ‘eyesight’ of šm’ ‘hearing’

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

DIV POL INCON KIN SOC INABS ROM COND ANIM

See Hear

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Hier Counter-Hier Non-Hier0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1




social status (e.g. God, father) than the experiencer (e.g. people, son). Non-hierarchical events account for 37% of all sadness events. Figure 7.6 presents the three types of hierarchy in the use of sadness lexemes.

Figure 7.5: Proportions of volition in Figure 7.6: Proportions of hierarchy in sadness events sadness events 7.2.2 Sensory perception (r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm’ ‘hearing’) Each of the two lexemes that represent sensory perception, r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’, occur in BH much more frequently than ’hb. For the purposes of comparison, small samples of 100 occurrences of each were compiled as datasets. The samples were not randomly re-trieved, but were matched to the percentage of the occurrences of ’hb in the different biblical books. That is, the percentage per book of the occurrences of ’hb were used as the criterion for the frequencies of the perception lexemes per book in the datasets. Such matching could not always be precise, as the frequency in each book varies per lexeme and concept, but in this way the frequencies of r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ in the books included in the datasets are as similar as possible to the frequency of ’hb in these books. The reason for following this crite-rion is to attempt to compare the lexemes in as similar as possible contexts to those of ’hb. Besides the sheer sensory perception that r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ encode, both lex-emes also often encode cognitive activities or processes. Examples of the former are ‘realise’, ‘notice’, and ‘know’, as in (5a); examples of the latter are ‘listen’ and ‘obey’, as in (5b). (5) a. wayyōmer rə’ēh rêaḥ bənî kərêaḥ śādeh ’ăšer bērăkô yāhwəh

‘He said: see, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field, which Yhwh has blessed.’ (Gen 27:27)

b. hābâ nērdâ wənābəlâ šām śəpātām ’ăšer lō’ yišmə‘û ’îš śəpat rē‘ēhû ‘Let us go down and confuse there their language so that they may not understand (lit. ‘hearing’) one another’s language.’ (Gen 11:7)

The imperative form of r’h in (5a) expresses Isaac’s (at that time already blind) confirmation of his son’s identity after smelling his clothes. In (5b), šm‘ denotes understanding of speech. For the aim of the present comparison, only lexemes that encode sensory perception were

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

Vol Cause Non-VolCause

Non-Vol Ex 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5


included in the datasets, and cognitive activities encoded by the same lexemes were left out, so that a clear distinction between emotive experience and sensory perception could be made.

Figure 7.7: The distribution (%) of r’h ‘eyesight’ and šmʿ ‘hearing’ in cultural domains Both r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ most frequently occur in the cultural domain of Divinity (see Figure 7.7). In general, the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ reflects social hierarchy in about 42% of its occurrences, that is, the experiencer has a higher social status than the actor/entity which is seen. This figure is much higher in the use of šm‘ ‘hearing’, with 80% of its occurrences being hierarchical events. In the use of r’h ‘eyesight’, the percentage of counter-hierarchical events is higher than that of its non-hierarchical use (31% and 26%, respectively). Figures 7.8 presents the proportions of the three hierarchy types in the use of r’h ‘eyesight’, Figure 7.9 of šm‘ ‘hearing’.

Figure 7.8: Proportions of hierarchical use Figure 7.9: Proportions of hierarchical use of r’h ‘eyesight’ of šm’ ‘hearing’

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

DIV POL INCON KIN SOC INABS ROM COND ANIM

See Hear

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5


0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1



Chapter 7 ׀ 130

Figure 7.10: Proportions of volition in the Figure 7.11: Proportions of volition in the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ (Comm=commanded) use of šm’ ‘hearing’ (Comm=commanded) Whereas volition in the use of ’hb ‘love’ in domains other than Divinity is infrequent and gen-erally rather implicit, volition of both r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ is more explicit, and particularly frequent in the latter. A commanded use occurs in both, but this is quite infrequent in the former. Figure 7.10 and Figure 7.11 show the proportion of these occurrences. The use of r’h ‘eyesight’ in the sample reflects the general male-dominance of BH, with men most frequently occurring as the experiencer of r’h-events (43%), and women as the experi-encer only in 4% of the occurrences. The masculine generic (MG) is, however, a relatively frequent type of experiencer (35%), and thus implies that women are the experiencer in more than just 4% of the total. A deity in the role of the experiencer occurs in 13% of r’h-events; an inanimate experiencer in 3%. The use of šm‘ ‘hearing’ likewise shows a male-dominance, with the experiencer identified as male in 36% of the occurrences compared with female in only 3% of the occurrences, though the possible existence of female experiencers is further implied in 2% of the non-specified MG-type. The proportion of the gender/animacy of the experiencer is presented in Figure 7.12 and Figure 7.13.

Figure 7.12: Proportions of gender/animacy Figure 7.13: Proportions of gender/animacy of experiencer and theme/stimulus in the use of experiencer and theme/stimulus in the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ of šmʿ ‘hearing’ In the use of both lexemes, the majority of the objects are inanimate, with 69% of occurrences for r’h ‘eyesight’, and 84% of occurrences for šm‘ ‘hearing’. In the latter, the objects are dif-ferent human and animate sounds and voices, such as speech, steps/movement, or the chirp of a turtledove.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Vol Comm Non-Vol0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Vol Comm Non-Vol

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

DEI M F MF MG INAN

EX TH

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

DEI M F MG ANIM INAN

Ex TH

7.2.3 Powerful contact and destruction The dataset of powerful contact consists of the three lexemes nkh, hlm, and ḥbṭ ‘hitting/strik-ing’, and includes only occurrences that denote different ways of hitting or striking, excluding occurrences that encode killing and defeating and which are often encoded with these lexemes. The dataset of destruction consists of occurrences of the lexeme hrg ‘killing’. Both datasets of powerful contact and destruction were compiled in the same manner as those of sensory per-ception, i.e., samples of 100 occurrences retrieved from the same books in which ’hb occurs, in accordance with the frequencies of ’hb in those books. The lexemes of both categories are semantically related as they more often denote an action rather than an experience or state, and both prototypically have a causative (volitional) agent and an affected patient. As the distribution of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes and hrg ‘killing’ over the cultural domains in the datasets shows, both are associated with a human social character but in different ways. The former category occurs more often in the cultural domain of Social Relations (SOC in Figure 7.14), while the latter is more frequent in the domains of Politics and Kinship.

Figure 7.14: The distribution (%) of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes and hrg ‘killing’ over

conceptual domains (ADULT = adultery; Hit represents all ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes) In general, the prototypical use of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes in the datasets is not social hierar-chical (Figure 7.15). This is very different from hrg ‘killing’ of which 59% of the occurrences are social hierarchical and where the agent of killing-events has a higher social status than the patient (Figure 7.16). The use of both ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes and hrg is prototypically voli-tional; in the latter this is the case in every occurrence of a verb with a specified agent (Figure 7.17). Whereas none of the killing-events have an explicit female agent, two women do occur in this role in the dataset of ‘hitting/striking’; the masculine generic form (MG) may also refer to women. Women without an individual identity do occur as a patient of ‘hitting/striking’ (1%) and hrg ‘killing’ (5%). In both datasets, God obviously occurs only as the agent. Figures 7.18–7.19 show the proportion of gender/animacy in the use of these lexemes.

05

1015

20

2530

3540

45

SOC POL DIV INCON COND ANIM KIN ADULT

Hit Kill



Figure 7.10: Proportions of volition in the Figure 7.11: Proportions of volition in the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ (Comm=commanded) use of šm’ ‘hearing’ (Comm=commanded) Whereas volition in the use of ’hb ‘love’ in domains other than Divinity is infrequent and gen-erally rather implicit, volition of both r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ is more explicit, and particularly frequent in the latter. A commanded use occurs in both, but this is quite infrequent in the former. Figure 7.10 and Figure 7.11 show the proportion of these occurrences. The use of r’h ‘eyesight’ in the sample reflects the general male-dominance of BH, with men most frequently occurring as the experiencer of r’h-events (43%), and women as the experi-encer only in 4% of the occurrences. The masculine generic (MG) is, however, a relatively frequent type of experiencer (35%), and thus implies that women are the experiencer in more than just 4% of the total. A deity in the role of the experiencer occurs in 13% of r’h-events; an inanimate experiencer in 3%. The use of šm‘ ‘hearing’ likewise shows a male-dominance, with the experiencer identified as male in 36% of the occurrences compared with female in only 3% of the occurrences, though the possible existence of female experiencers is further implied in 2% of the non-specified MG-type. The proportion of the gender/animacy of the experiencer is presented in Figure 7.12 and Figure 7.13.

Figure 7.12: Proportions of gender/animacy Figure 7.13: Proportions of gender/animacy of experiencer and theme/stimulus in the use of experiencer and theme/stimulus in the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ of šmʿ ‘hearing’ In the use of both lexemes, the majority of the objects are inanimate, with 69% of occurrences for r’h ‘eyesight’, and 84% of occurrences for šm‘ ‘hearing’. In the latter, the objects are dif-ferent human and animate sounds and voices, such as speech, steps/movement, or the chirp of a turtledove.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Vol Comm Non-Vol0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Vol Comm Non-Vol

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

DEI M F MF MG INAN

EX TH

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Ex TH

7.2.3 Powerful contact and destruction The dataset of powerful contact consists of the three lexemes nkh, hlm, and ḥbṭ ‘hitting/strik-ing’, and includes only occurrences that denote different ways of hitting or striking, excluding occurrences that encode killing and defeating and which are often encoded with these lexemes. The dataset of destruction consists of occurrences of the lexeme hrg ‘killing’. Both datasets of powerful contact and destruction were compiled in the same manner as those of sensory per-ception, i.e., samples of 100 occurrences retrieved from the same books in which ’hb occurs, in accordance with the frequencies of ’hb in those books. The lexemes of both categories are semantically related as they more often denote an action rather than an experience or state, and both prototypically have a causative (volitional) agent and an affected patient. As the distribution of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes and hrg ‘killing’ over the cultural domains in the datasets shows, both are associated with a human social character but in different ways. The former category occurs more often in the cultural domain of Social Relations (SOC in Figure 7.14), while the latter is more frequent in the domains of Politics and Kinship.

Figure 7.14: The distribution (%) of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes and hrg ‘killing’ over

conceptual domains (ADULT = adultery; Hit represents all ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes) In general, the prototypical use of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes in the datasets is not social hierar-chical (Figure 7.15). This is very different from hrg ‘killing’ of which 59% of the occurrences are social hierarchical and where the agent of killing-events has a higher social status than the patient (Figure 7.16). The use of both ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes and hrg is prototypically voli-tional; in the latter this is the case in every occurrence of a verb with a specified agent (Figure 7.17). Whereas none of the killing-events have an explicit female agent, two women do occur in this role in the dataset of ‘hitting/striking’; the masculine generic form (MG) may also refer to women. Women without an individual identity do occur as a patient of ‘hitting/striking’ (1%) and hrg ‘killing’ (5%). In both datasets, God obviously occurs only as the agent. Figures 7.18–7.19 show the proportion of gender/animacy in the use of these lexemes.

05

1015

20

2530

3540

45

SOC POL DIV INCON COND ANIM KIN ADULT

Hit Kill


Chapter 7 ׀ 132

Figure 7.15: Proportions of hierarchical use Figure 7.16: Proportions of hierarchical use of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes of hrg ‘killing’

Figure 7.17: Proportions of volition in the use of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes and hrg ‘killing’

Figure 7.18: Proportions of gender/animacy of agent and patient

In the use of ‘hitting/killing’ lexemes

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


0.10.20.30.40.50.60.7


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Vol Comm Non-Vol

Hit Kill

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


AG PAT


in the use of hrg ‘killing’ 7.3 Comparison between ’hb and five concepts unrelated to affection 7.3.1 Hierarchical Agglomerative Cluster Analysis In order to compare these six concepts, a hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis (hence-forth HAC) was applied, based on a set of features, annotated and standardised for all six con-cepts. HAC analysis refers to a class of statistical tests based on the multifactorial method, which measure the degrees of similarity and dissimilarity between different objects by cluster-ing them according to a variety of factors they may or may not share with each other. The more factors that different objects share with each other, the more likely it is for these objects to be clustered together. The hierarchical agglomerative clustering is a ‘bottom up’ process: each object first forms its own cluster and, subsequently, the two most similar clusters are combined together to create a new cluster. This process repeats until all the clusters and sub-clusters form one complex cluster (a tree structure), where the distances between sub-clusters indicate the degrees of (dis)similarity. HAC analysis has been used in different (corpus-)linguistic studies, for example, polysemy of prepositions (Sandra & Rice 1995; Rice 1996; Gries 2006), semantics of verbs on the basis of their syntactic behaviour (Schulte im Walde 2000), near synonyms (Divjak & Gries 2006, 2008; Gries & Divjak 2009; Glynn 2014), and collostruction (i.e., association between lexemes and constructions; Gries & Stefanowitsch 2010). The factors on which the analysis is based depend on the object of study. For example, in Sandra & Rice (1995) and Rice (1996), the analysis involved the results of a sorting task (by the participants in the experiment), based on assessments of the use of the prepositions ‘at’, ‘on’, and ‘in’ within sentences. Participants were instructed to sort the sentences according to their judgment, and the frequencies of the sorting (i.e., the resulted categories of sentences) were used as input features in the clustering process. The resulting clusters indicated the perception of prototypical meanings, such as tem-poral and spatial. In the studies of Divjak & Gries (2006) and Gries & Divijak (2009) on near synonyms, the factors were a set of features that characterised the use of the words under

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


AG PAT



Figure 7.15: Proportions of hierarchical use Figure 7.16: Proportions of hierarchical use of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes of hrg ‘killing’

Figure 7.17: Proportions of volition in the use of ‘hitting/striking’ lexemes and hrg ‘killing’


In the use of ‘hitting/killing’ lexemes

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


0.10.20.30.40.50.60.7


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Vol Comm Non-Vol

Hit Kill

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


AG PAT


in the use of hrg ‘killing’ 7.3 Comparison between ’hb and five concepts unrelated to affection 7.3.1 Hierarchical Agglomerative Cluster Analysis In order to compare these six concepts, a hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis (hence-forth HAC) was applied, based on a set of features, annotated and standardised for all six con-cepts. HAC analysis refers to a class of statistical tests based on the multifactorial method, which measure the degrees of similarity and dissimilarity between different objects by cluster-ing them according to a variety of factors they may or may not share with each other. The more factors that different objects share with each other, the more likely it is for these objects to be clustered together. The hierarchical agglomerative clustering is a ‘bottom up’ process: each object first forms its own cluster and, subsequently, the two most similar clusters are combined together to create a new cluster. This process repeats until all the clusters and sub-clusters form one complex cluster (a tree structure), where the distances between sub-clusters indicate the degrees of (dis)similarity. HAC analysis has been used in different (corpus-)linguistic studies, for example, polysemy of prepositions (Sandra & Rice 1995; Rice 1996; Gries 2006), semantics of verbs on the basis of their syntactic behaviour (Schulte im Walde 2000), near synonyms (Divjak & Gries 2006, 2008; Gries & Divjak 2009; Glynn 2014), and collostruction (i.e., association between lexemes and constructions; Gries & Stefanowitsch 2010). The factors on which the analysis is based depend on the object of study. For example, in Sandra & Rice (1995) and Rice (1996), the analysis involved the results of a sorting task (by the participants in the experiment), based on assessments of the use of the prepositions ‘at’, ‘on’, and ‘in’ within sentences. Participants were instructed to sort the sentences according to their judgment, and the frequencies of the sorting (i.e., the resulted categories of sentences) were used as input features in the clustering process. The resulting clusters indicated the perception of prototypical meanings, such as tem-poral and spatial. In the studies of Divjak & Gries (2006) and Gries & Divijak (2009) on near synonyms, the factors were a set of features that characterised the use of the words under

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


AG PAT


Chapter 7 ׀ 134

consideration, as indicated in the corpora. The set of features consisted of morphological (e.g., verb inflection) as well as syntactic (e.g., position in clause, collocation) and semantic (e.g., animacy) characteristics. The total set of features (‘ID Tags’) together forms the behavioural profile of each of the compared words. Behavioural Profile consists of the entire set of charac-teristics of a word’s morphosyntactic and semantic usage (see Divijak & Gries 2006). In order to cluster words together, either for semantic or other purposes, the same set of features should be annotated for each occurrence of each word category. The (dis)similarities in the distribution of these features over the words are the basis of the clustering. The study of Divjak & Gries (2006) illustrated this clustering process, where near synonym verbs of ‘trying’ in Russian were clustered together if they shared a relatively high number of features (e.g., past tense, interrogative sentence, human subject), and verbs which shared a relatively low number of features were either not clustered together or clustered at a greater distance from one another. Since the features included in the analysis were not equally distributed over the verbs, dissim-ilarities occurred and influenced the clustering. Figure 7.20 (taken from Divjak & Gries 2006) presents the resulting clusters.

Figure 7.20: Dendrogram for Russian near synonyms of ‘trying’

(Divjak & Gries 2006: 38) The dendrogram presents three main clusters, each containing a cluster of two sub-clusters and a third object which is joined to this sub-cluster, but located higher than it. It is also clear that the leftmost and middle clusters together form a complex cluster to which the rightmost cluster joins at a higher point. The y-axis marks the distance of the split or merger of objects, and the numbers simply indicate the relative height of the amalgamation nodes and the distance be-tween them, which can be translated to (dis)similarity. The lower two or more objects are clus-tered together, the more similar these objects are to each other. The most similar objects are also the first to be clustered together. In Figure 5.20, the two objects pytat’sja and starat’sja in

the leftmost cluster are clustered together at the lowest point (i.e., lower than 45), and are thus the most similar near synonyms of all nine verbs. The two verbs probovat’ and norovit’ in the rightmost cluster, although clustered at only a slightly higher point (closer to 45), have a rela-tively high degree of semantic dissimilarity with respect to the former pair since their cluster joins the other two main clusters at a much higher point, namely above 70. Applying the behavioural profile approach as the basis for the present analysis seems to increase the reliability and objectivity of the comparison in which the (dis)similarity of con-ceptually (nearly) unrelated lexemes in BH is investigated. Although the present analysis con-cerns the semantic and contextual characteristics of words, and not synonyms and polysemy, the overall use of the lexemes provides a rich variety of information, from morpho-syntactic to semantic to sociolinguistic, to literary genre and text type, just as the compiled corpora may provide. The annotation of this information in the form of features and comparing the frequen-cies of these features in the use of each of the lexemes can reveal (dis)similarities between them. The behavioural profile approach seems particularly appropriate to the character of the corpus used here, as the biblical texts often require a great deal of interpretation at different levels, from words to large texts, and involve different perspectives, such as theological, ety-mological, historical, archaeological, literary, among others, and possibly also translation. The application of this approach provides more objective data regardless of the theoretical perspec-tives and specific choice of translation. The particular aim of the present investigation, namely to explore the sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb, dictates the relevance of the features to be included in the behavioural profiles of the compared lexemes. Hence, the results of the cluster analysis can only be examined in relation to the very aim of the study. A similar approach, although not for the purpose of clustering, underlies the analysis of ’hb alone, whose use is strongly dependent on the specific cultural domains and contexts, as was described in Chapter 4 (4.2). The examination of the features at the different linguistic and other levels of use, such as biblical and sociolinguistic contexts, provides more specific insights into the different senses and conceptions that ’hb encodes. It is important to note that for a corpus study, the volume of the datasets and the number of features included in the present analysis are relatively small. This is a direct consequence of the small size (425,185 words) of the Hebrew Bible, the source corpus of the present study. The total occurrences of all six concepts in the present study (i.e., 699) and the total number of features (i.e., 37) are about half of the totals in other studies (e.g., 1585 occurrences and 87 features in Divjak & Gries 2006; 1479 occurrences and 73 features in Divjak & Gries 2009). Furthermore, the small number of compared elements (six), predicts a small number of maxi-mum clusters. The size of the datasets and the corpora in general is relevant for the descriptive accuracy of the analyses more broadly and for the application of the hierarchical cluster anal-ysis. Gries (2006) stressed that a small-sized dataset cannot provide a fully descriptive analysis, and, as a result, the analysis in such cases is exploratory in nature (see also Gries 2009; Glynn 2014). Due to the limitations of the corpus, the application of the HAC in the present study is sheerly exploratory, with the aim to provide a broader perspective for the understanding of ’hb and its sociocultural character, as was mentioned in the introduction of the chapter (see Divijak & Gries 2006 for more on the exploratory function of clustering). Applying this method enables the tracing of general patterns independently of any existing hypothesis. Clustering here serves



consideration, as indicated in the corpora. The set of features consisted of morphological (e.g., verb inflection) as well as syntactic (e.g., position in clause, collocation) and semantic (e.g., animacy) characteristics. The total set of features (‘ID Tags’) together forms the behavioural profile of each of the compared words. Behavioural Profile consists of the entire set of charac-teristics of a word’s morphosyntactic and semantic usage (see Divijak & Gries 2006). In order to cluster words together, either for semantic or other purposes, the same set of features should be annotated for each occurrence of each word category. The (dis)similarities in the distribution of these features over the words are the basis of the clustering. The study of Divjak & Gries (2006) illustrated this clustering process, where near synonym verbs of ‘trying’ in Russian were clustered together if they shared a relatively high number of features (e.g., past tense, interrogative sentence, human subject), and verbs which shared a relatively low number of features were either not clustered together or clustered at a greater distance from one another. Since the features included in the analysis were not equally distributed over the verbs, dissim-ilarities occurred and influenced the clustering. Figure 7.20 (taken from Divjak & Gries 2006) presents the resulting clusters.

Figure 7.20: Dendrogram for Russian near synonyms of ‘trying’

(Divjak & Gries 2006: 38) The dendrogram presents three main clusters, each containing a cluster of two sub-clusters and a third object which is joined to this sub-cluster, but located higher than it. It is also clear that the leftmost and middle clusters together form a complex cluster to which the rightmost cluster joins at a higher point. The y-axis marks the distance of the split or merger of objects, and the numbers simply indicate the relative height of the amalgamation nodes and the distance be-tween them, which can be translated to (dis)similarity. The lower two or more objects are clus-tered together, the more similar these objects are to each other. The most similar objects are also the first to be clustered together. In Figure 5.20, the two objects pytat’sja and starat’sja in

the leftmost cluster are clustered together at the lowest point (i.e., lower than 45), and are thus the most similar near synonyms of all nine verbs. The two verbs probovat’ and norovit’ in the rightmost cluster, although clustered at only a slightly higher point (closer to 45), have a rela-tively high degree of semantic dissimilarity with respect to the former pair since their cluster joins the other two main clusters at a much higher point, namely above 70. Applying the behavioural profile approach as the basis for the present analysis seems to increase the reliability and objectivity of the comparison in which the (dis)similarity of con-ceptually (nearly) unrelated lexemes in BH is investigated. Although the present analysis con-cerns the semantic and contextual characteristics of words, and not synonyms and polysemy, the overall use of the lexemes provides a rich variety of information, from morpho-syntactic to semantic to sociolinguistic, to literary genre and text type, just as the compiled corpora may provide. The annotation of this information in the form of features and comparing the frequen-cies of these features in the use of each of the lexemes can reveal (dis)similarities between them. The behavioural profile approach seems particularly appropriate to the character of the corpus used here, as the biblical texts often require a great deal of interpretation at different levels, from words to large texts, and involve different perspectives, such as theological, ety-mological, historical, archaeological, literary, among others, and possibly also translation. The application of this approach provides more objective data regardless of the theoretical perspec-tives and specific choice of translation. The particular aim of the present investigation, namely to explore the sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb, dictates the relevance of the features to be included in the behavioural profiles of the compared lexemes. Hence, the results of the cluster analysis can only be examined in relation to the very aim of the study. A similar approach, although not for the purpose of clustering, underlies the analysis of ’hb alone, whose use is strongly dependent on the specific cultural domains and contexts, as was described in Chapter 4 (4.2). The examination of the features at the different linguistic and other levels of use, such as biblical and sociolinguistic contexts, provides more specific insights into the different senses and conceptions that ’hb encodes. It is important to note that for a corpus study, the volume of the datasets and the number of features included in the present analysis are relatively small. This is a direct consequence of the small size (425,185 words) of the Hebrew Bible, the source corpus of the present study. The total occurrences of all six concepts in the present study (i.e., 699) and the total number of features (i.e., 37) are about half of the totals in other studies (e.g., 1585 occurrences and 87 features in Divjak & Gries 2006; 1479 occurrences and 73 features in Divjak & Gries 2009). Furthermore, the small number of compared elements (six), predicts a small number of maxi-mum clusters. The size of the datasets and the corpora in general is relevant for the descriptive accuracy of the analyses more broadly and for the application of the hierarchical cluster anal-ysis. Gries (2006) stressed that a small-sized dataset cannot provide a fully descriptive analysis, and, as a result, the analysis in such cases is exploratory in nature (see also Gries 2009; Glynn 2014). Due to the limitations of the corpus, the application of the HAC in the present study is sheerly exploratory, with the aim to provide a broader perspective for the understanding of ’hb and its sociocultural character, as was mentioned in the introduction of the chapter (see Divijak & Gries 2006 for more on the exploratory function of clustering). Applying this method enables the tracing of general patterns independently of any existing hypothesis. Clustering here serves


Chapter 7 ׀ 136

as a means for indicating the possible socialness-based conceptual links between the use of ’hb and the use of other concepts. On the basis of the findings, the extent of socialness in the use of ’hb and the sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb can be more accurately determined. 7.3.2 Clustering The set of factors used in a HAC analysis must be relevant to the purpose of the study. The most relevant factors for the purpose of the present analysis are the following: (a) the type of participant (i.e., gender/animacy), which in many cases also indicates social status, e.g., God is superior to humans, and men are generally superior to women, (b) social hierarchy (i.e., the possible differences in social status) based on the social identity of the participants as known from the text, as, for example, between a king and a servant, parent and child, or between friends, (c) volitionality, since it was found to be associated with social hierarchy in the use of ’hb, and (d) the cultural domain (i.e., the biblical-cultural context) in which the events occur, as not all domains are equally associated with socialness. Certain cultural domains such as Divinity, Kinship, or Politics, for example, are more likely to be associated with socialness than the inanimate concrete domain, which is often the context of a human attraction to or desire for concrete things regardless of social interactions.

Absolute Features

Cultural Domain 1. Divinity 2. Kinship 3. Romance 4. Adultery 5. Social Relations 6. Politics 8. Inanimate Abstract Things 9. Animals 10. Conduct & Activity

Gender/Animacy 11. Deity (DEI) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 12. Masculine (M) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 13. Feminine (F) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 14. MascFem (MF) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 15. Masculine generic (MG) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 16. Animate (ANIM) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 17. Inanimate (INAN) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE)

Table 7.1: features of cultural domains and gender/animacy The factors of the cultural domain and the gender/animacy of the participant are absolute (i.e., they are not scalar or partial), and they are entirely dictated by the text. The former consists of

10 cultural domains that are used as 10 features in the analysis; the latter consists of the fol-lowing seven basic features: masculine (M), feminine (F), masculine and feminine (MF), mas-culine generic (MG), deity (DEI), animate (ANIM), and inanimate (INAN). These seven fea-tures may occur with the following semantic roles: agent/experiencer, patient/theme, or cause. This yields a maximum number of 31 absolute features (see Table 7.1). Whereas domain and gender/animacy consist of absolute features, volition and hierarchy are scalar factors, often based on the specific context, and may require some interpretation and judgment. The commanded meaning of volition, for example, is indicated by the verbal forms (the imperative and the perfect consecutive) or the structure of the clause, as in (6a), where the form of šm‘ is the infinitive (‘to hear’), but the clause is a direct speech complementing a tran-sitive clause of commandment. Volitional and non-volitional uses are usually indicated by the contexts, as in (6b–c). (6) a. wā’ăṣawweh ’et-šōpṭêkem bā‘ēt hahî’ lē’mōr šāmō‘a bên-’ăḥêkem

ûšpaṭəttem ṣedeq bên-’îš ûbên-’āḥîw ûbên gērô ‘I have commanded your judges at that time, saying: to hear [the cases] between your brothers, and judge justice between a man and his brother and the foreigner who is with him.’ (Deut 1:16)

b. naškîmâ lakərāmîm nir’eh ’im pārḥâ haggepen pittaḥ hassəmādar

hēnēṣû hārimmônîm šām ’ettēn ’et-dōday lāk ‘Let us get up early to the vineyards and see whether the vine has budded, whether the grape blossom opened and the pomegranates budded. There I will give you my love.’ (Song 7:13)

c. kî qôl šôpār šāma‘atî ‘For I heard the sound of the trumpet.’ (Jer 4:19)

In (6b), ‘eyesight’ encodes a future volitional perceptive experience of two lovers; in (6c) ‘hearing’ encodes a non-volitional perceptive experience. The annotation of hierarchy is primarily based on the presence/absence of two participants in a given event and a possible difference in social status between them. Events that involve only one divine/human participant or an inanimate patient/theme do not indicate the possible existence of social hierarchy.

Volition Volitional volitional agent/experiencer is driven by their own will

Commanded/forced volitional agent/experi-encer is driven by an exter-nal commandment

Non-volitional agent/patient acts spontane-ously

Table 7.2: Degrees of volition Events annotated as ‘hierarchical’ are those in which the agent/experiencer has a higher status than the patient/theme; ‘counter-hierarchical’ are those events in which the social status of the



as a means for indicating the possible socialness-based conceptual links between the use of ’hb and the use of other concepts. On the basis of the findings, the extent of socialness in the use of ’hb and the sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb can be more accurately determined. 7.3.2 Clustering The set of factors used in a HAC analysis must be relevant to the purpose of the study. The most relevant factors for the purpose of the present analysis are the following: (a) the type of participant (i.e., gender/animacy), which in many cases also indicates social status, e.g., God is superior to humans, and men are generally superior to women, (b) social hierarchy (i.e., the possible differences in social status) based on the social identity of the participants as known from the text, as, for example, between a king and a servant, parent and child, or between friends, (c) volitionality, since it was found to be associated with social hierarchy in the use of ’hb, and (d) the cultural domain (i.e., the biblical-cultural context) in which the events occur, as not all domains are equally associated with socialness. Certain cultural domains such as Divinity, Kinship, or Politics, for example, are more likely to be associated with socialness than the inanimate concrete domain, which is often the context of a human attraction to or desire for concrete things regardless of social interactions.

Absolute Features

Cultural Domain 1. Divinity 2. Kinship 3. Romance 4. Adultery 5. Social Relations 6. Politics 8. Inanimate Abstract Things 9. Animals 10. Conduct & Activity

Gender/Animacy 11. Deity (DEI) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 12. Masculine (M) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 13. Feminine (F) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 14. MascFem (MF) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 15. Masculine generic (MG) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 16. Animate (ANIM) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE) 17. Inanimate (INAN) (AG/EX / PT/TH / CAUSE)

Table 7.1: features of cultural domains and gender/animacy The factors of the cultural domain and the gender/animacy of the participant are absolute (i.e., they are not scalar or partial), and they are entirely dictated by the text. The former consists of

10 cultural domains that are used as 10 features in the analysis; the latter consists of the fol-lowing seven basic features: masculine (M), feminine (F), masculine and feminine (MF), mas-culine generic (MG), deity (DEI), animate (ANIM), and inanimate (INAN). These seven fea-tures may occur with the following semantic roles: agent/experiencer, patient/theme, or cause. This yields a maximum number of 31 absolute features (see Table 7.1). Whereas domain and gender/animacy consist of absolute features, volition and hierarchy are scalar factors, often based on the specific context, and may require some interpretation and judgment. The commanded meaning of volition, for example, is indicated by the verbal forms (the imperative and the perfect consecutive) or the structure of the clause, as in (6a), where the form of šm‘ is the infinitive (‘to hear’), but the clause is a direct speech complementing a tran-sitive clause of commandment. Volitional and non-volitional uses are usually indicated by the contexts, as in (6b–c). (6) a. wā’ăṣawweh ’et-šōpṭêkem bā‘ēt hahî’ lē’mōr šāmō‘a bên-’ăḥêkem

ûšpaṭəttem ṣedeq bên-’îš ûbên-’āḥîw ûbên gērô ‘I have commanded your judges at that time, saying: to hear [the cases] between your brothers, and judge justice between a man and his brother and the foreigner who is with him.’ (Deut 1:16)

b. naškîmâ lakərāmîm nir’eh ’im pārḥâ haggepen pittaḥ hassəmādar

hēnēṣû hārimmônîm šām ’ettēn ’et-dōday lāk ‘Let us get up early to the vineyards and see whether the vine has budded, whether the grape blossom opened and the pomegranates budded. There I will give you my love.’ (Song 7:13)

c. kî qôl šôpār šāma‘atî ‘For I heard the sound of the trumpet.’ (Jer 4:19)

In (6b), ‘eyesight’ encodes a future volitional perceptive experience of two lovers; in (6c) ‘hearing’ encodes a non-volitional perceptive experience. The annotation of hierarchy is primarily based on the presence/absence of two participants in a given event and a possible difference in social status between them. Events that involve only one divine/human participant or an inanimate patient/theme do not indicate the possible existence of social hierarchy.

Volition Volitional volitional agent/experiencer is driven by their own will

Commanded/forced volitional agent/experi-encer is driven by an exter-nal commandment

Non-volitional agent/patient acts spontane-ously

Table 7.2: Degrees of volition Events annotated as ‘hierarchical’ are those in which the agent/experiencer has a higher status than the patient/theme; ‘counter-hierarchical’ are those events in which the social status of the


Chapter 7 ׀ 138

agent/experiencer is lower than that of the patient/theme; ‘non-hierarchical’ events involve participants with an equal social status, such as friends. The factors of hierarchy and volition together consist of six non-absolute features (see Table 7.2 and Table 7.3).

Social hierarchy Hierarchical agent/experiencer has higher social status than pa-tient/theme

Counter-hierarchical agent/experiencer has lower social status than pa-tient/theme

Non-hierarchical agent/experiencer and pa-tient/theme have equal sta-tus

Table 7.3: Degrees of social hierarchy Turning now to the cluster analysis, the four socialness-associated factors, namely cultural domain, hierarchy, volition, and gender/animacy, had a total of 37 features, and were included in two different analyses: one excluding ’hb and one including ’hb. For the sake of conven-ience, the six compared concepts are labelled as follows: ‘love’, ‘sad’, ‘see’, ‘hear’, ‘hit’, and ‘kill’ (see Figures 7.21 and 7.22).

Figure 7.21: Cluster dendrogram (without Figure 7.22: Cluster dendrogram (including

’hb) on the basis of cultural domain, ’hb) on the basis of cultural domain, gender/animacy, hierarchy, and volition gender/animacy, hierarchy, and volition (37 features, distance matrix - ‘canberra’, (37 features, distance matrix - ‘canberra’, agglomeration method - ‘ward.D2’) agglomeration method - ‘ward.D2’) As can be seen in Figure 7.21, on the basis of the 37 features, the five biblical concepts are clustered together in accordance with the semantic categories to which they belong. The first cluster is ‘sensory perception’ (the highest within-cluster similarity), the second cluster is ‘powerful contact-devastation’, and the third cluster is ‘emotion’, which differs the greatest from the others. The dendrogram in Figure 7.22 shows that ’hb (love) is clustered together with ‘see’ and ‘hear’, but it is closer to the former. The inclusion of ’hb in the cluster analysis has

sad

see

hear

hit

kill

1214

1618

2022

Height

hit

kill

sad

hear

love see10

1214

1618

2022

24

Height

effect on the structure of the sensory perception cluster, it decreases the distance between this cluster and ‘sad’, and increases the distance between this cluster and that of ‘hit’ and ‘kill’. The length of the short lines marking the concepts is equal and serves only a graphical-stylistic function (in Figure 5.20 such lines do not exist). The height of the merge/split points on the y-axis indicates the emergence of the clusters denoted by the horizontal lines. The metric applied in the present analysis is the ‘canberra’ distance metric, which was found to be a particularly appropriate metric for small-sized data (see Gries 2006; Glynn 2014) as well as for data with a relatively high number of zero occurrences (Divijak & Gries 2009). As was mentioned above, the data used here is relatively small. In contrast to polysemy and near synonyms, in which conceptual similarity to some extent is inherent, the six concepts compared in the present study are inherently different from one another. Furthermore, the features used are not equally distributed over the different words (and certainly not over the lexemes in the present examination), hence, zero occurrences of some features are relatively frequent. Lex-emes of sadness, for example, do not occur in the cultural domains of Romance, Inanimate concrete things, Politics, and Adultery. Similarly, the deity never occurs as the patient of kill-ing, and a female is never the agent of killing. As for the agglomeration method, the one applied here is ‘Ward’ (renamed new version ‘ward.D2’), which is based on the minimisation of the squared sums of errors (Ward 1963). The squared sums of errors is an adequate measure of the variation within a cluster, and ‘Ward’ is, therefore, a commonly used method in many applica-tions of hierarchical clustering (see Gries 2009; Divjak & Fieller 2014; Glynn 2014).31 These results suggest that, on the basis of the 37 included features, the use of ’hb is most similar to the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ and (to a lesser extent) šm‘ ‘hearing’, while it is least similar to the use of nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting/striking’ and hrg ‘killing’. In particular, the results suggest that ’hb shares more features with r’h ‘eyesight’ (and šm‘ ‘hearing’) than with the other three concepts. Although not unlikely, this requires some specification. It is especially important to specify the features that are most responsible for these observed (dis)similarities. Since each of the included factors yields a somewhat different clustering, looking at the factors individu-ally can reveal the relative weight each of them has in the outcome. Interestingly, on the basis of the three features of hierarchy alone, ’hb is clustered together with hrg ‘killing’ (see Figure 7.23). Moreover, these two concepts show the highest within-cluster similarity.32

31 Applying different distance metrics and agglomeration methods may yield different results. Due to the small size of the dataset, and in particular the small number of compared categories (i.e., the six concepts), applying different distance metrics (i.e., ‘manhattan’ and ‘euclidian’) and agglomeration methods (e.g., ‘average’) did not yield meaningful differences in clustering in the present study. When differences did occur, for example in the analysis based on cultural domains (10 features), the frequencies of features showed that the ‘canberra’ matrix most reliably indicated the data. 32 Applying the ‘manhattan’ and ‘euclidian’ distance matrices to this analysis resulted in some different clustering structure than that measured with the ‘canberra’, but also with these matrices ’hb is clustered together with hrg ‘kill’. As was mentioned above, the result of the ‘manhattan’ matrix is very similar to that of the ‘canberra’ also in the overall clustering.



agent/experiencer is lower than that of the patient/theme; ‘non-hierarchical’ events involve participants with an equal social status, such as friends. The factors of hierarchy and volition together consist of six non-absolute features (see Table 7.2 and Table 7.3).

Social hierarchy Hierarchical agent/experiencer has higher social status than pa-tient/theme

Counter-hierarchical agent/experiencer has lower social status than pa-tient/theme

Non-hierarchical agent/experiencer and pa-tient/theme have equal sta-tus

Table 7.3: Degrees of social hierarchy Turning now to the cluster analysis, the four socialness-associated factors, namely cultural domain, hierarchy, volition, and gender/animacy, had a total of 37 features, and were included in two different analyses: one excluding ’hb and one including ’hb. For the sake of conven-ience, the six compared concepts are labelled as follows: ‘love’, ‘sad’, ‘see’, ‘hear’, ‘hit’, and ‘kill’ (see Figures 7.21 and 7.22).

Figure 7.21: Cluster dendrogram (without Figure 7.22: Cluster dendrogram (including

’hb) on the basis of cultural domain, ’hb) on the basis of cultural domain, gender/animacy, hierarchy, and volition gender/animacy, hierarchy, and volition (37 features, distance matrix - ‘canberra’, (37 features, distance matrix - ‘canberra’, agglomeration method - ‘ward.D2’) agglomeration method - ‘ward.D2’) As can be seen in Figure 7.21, on the basis of the 37 features, the five biblical concepts are clustered together in accordance with the semantic categories to which they belong. The first cluster is ‘sensory perception’ (the highest within-cluster similarity), the second cluster is ‘powerful contact-devastation’, and the third cluster is ‘emotion’, which differs the greatest from the others. The dendrogram in Figure 7.22 shows that ’hb (love) is clustered together with ‘see’ and ‘hear’, but it is closer to the former. The inclusion of ’hb in the cluster analysis has

sad

see

hear

hit

kill

1214

1618

2022

Height

hit

kill

sad

hear

love see10

1214

1618

2022

24

Height

effect on the structure of the sensory perception cluster, it decreases the distance between this cluster and ‘sad’, and increases the distance between this cluster and that of ‘hit’ and ‘kill’. The length of the short lines marking the concepts is equal and serves only a graphical-stylistic function (in Figure 5.20 such lines do not exist). The height of the merge/split points on the y-axis indicates the emergence of the clusters denoted by the horizontal lines. The metric applied in the present analysis is the ‘canberra’ distance metric, which was found to be a particularly appropriate metric for small-sized data (see Gries 2006; Glynn 2014) as well as for data with a relatively high number of zero occurrences (Divijak & Gries 2009). As was mentioned above, the data used here is relatively small. In contrast to polysemy and near synonyms, in which conceptual similarity to some extent is inherent, the six concepts compared in the present study are inherently different from one another. Furthermore, the features used are not equally distributed over the different words (and certainly not over the lexemes in the present examination), hence, zero occurrences of some features are relatively frequent. Lex-emes of sadness, for example, do not occur in the cultural domains of Romance, Inanimate concrete things, Politics, and Adultery. Similarly, the deity never occurs as the patient of kill-ing, and a female is never the agent of killing. As for the agglomeration method, the one applied here is ‘Ward’ (renamed new version ‘ward.D2’), which is based on the minimisation of the squared sums of errors (Ward 1963). The squared sums of errors is an adequate measure of the variation within a cluster, and ‘Ward’ is, therefore, a commonly used method in many applica-tions of hierarchical clustering (see Gries 2009; Divjak & Fieller 2014; Glynn 2014).31 These results suggest that, on the basis of the 37 included features, the use of ’hb is most similar to the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ and (to a lesser extent) šm‘ ‘hearing’, while it is least similar to the use of nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting/striking’ and hrg ‘killing’. In particular, the results suggest that ’hb shares more features with r’h ‘eyesight’ (and šm‘ ‘hearing’) than with the other three concepts. Although not unlikely, this requires some specification. It is especially important to specify the features that are most responsible for these observed (dis)similarities. Since each of the included factors yields a somewhat different clustering, looking at the factors individu-ally can reveal the relative weight each of them has in the outcome. Interestingly, on the basis of the three features of hierarchy alone, ’hb is clustered together with hrg ‘killing’ (see Figure 7.23). Moreover, these two concepts show the highest within-cluster similarity.32

31 Applying different distance metrics and agglomeration methods may yield different results. Due to the small size of the dataset, and in particular the small number of compared categories (i.e., the six concepts), applying different distance metrics (i.e., ‘manhattan’ and ‘euclidian’) and agglomeration methods (e.g., ‘average’) did not yield meaningful differences in clustering in the present study. When differences did occur, for example in the analysis based on cultural domains (10 features), the frequencies of features showed that the ‘canberra’ matrix most reliably indicated the data. 32 Applying the ‘manhattan’ and ‘euclidian’ distance matrices to this analysis resulted in some different clustering structure than that measured with the ‘canberra’, but also with these matrices ’hb is clustered together with hrg ‘kill’. As was mentioned above, the result of the ‘manhattan’ matrix is very similar to that of the ‘canberra’ also in the overall clustering.


Chapter 7 ׀ 140

Figure 7.23: Cluster dendrogram on the basis of

hierarchy (3 features, distance matrix - ‘canberra’, agglomeration method - ‘ward.D2’)

Looking at the frequencies of the hierarchy features, it is indeed possible to trace some degree of similarity between the use of ’hb and that of hrg ‘killing’. In both cases, more than 50% of the occurrences have a hierarchical use (’hb 54%, hrg 59%), while less than 20% are non-hierarchical occurrences (i.e., 16% and 18% respectively). The difference between the two in counter-hierarchical use is slightly larger (’hb 30%, hrg 22%). This relative similarity in hier-archical use between ’hb and hrg is commensurate with the observed general hierarchical use of the first and, in effect, gives it more validity. The activity hrg denotes is more easily associ-ated with hierarchy than ’hb-events, i.e., the agent of a killing-event is more likely an individ-ual/people with power and/or higher status than the patient. Hence, the general hierarchical use of ’hb remains evident, also with respect to the more inherently hierarchical hrg. Another notable outcome of the hierarchy-based analysis, is the cluster of ‘hitting’/‘striking’ lexemes and ‘sadness’. Based on the association with agentivity and the element of power that both ‘hitting’/‘striking’ and ‘killing’ have, it would be expected that we find those two clus-tered together. Furthermore, the most frequent lexeme of ‘hitting’/‘striking’ in the dataset, nkh, denotes ‘killing’ in other contexts (not included in the analysis to avoid ambiguity), and indi-cates the conceptual association between ‘hitting’/’striking’ and ‘killing’ in BH. Still, the lex-emes of ‘hitting’/‘striking’ have the highest frequency (50%) of non-hierarchical use of all six lexemes. An explanation for this may be found in that, in contrast to hrg ‘killing’, lexemes of ‘hitting/striking’ also encode a relatively high frequency of events with an inanimate patient-participant (36%), for which hierarchy is irrelevant. In the case of ’hb, occurrences with inan-imate beloved-participants were also not counted as hierarchical, though their relative fre-quency is lower than that of inanimate patients of nkh ‘hitting/striking’.

hear

sad hit

see

love kill

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Height

The results for šm‘ ‘hearing’ are noteworthy as well. The use of this lexeme was found to be the most hierarchical (80%) of all six concepts. As the dendrogram in Figure 5.23 shows, šm‘ ‘hearing’ constitutes its own cluster. Hierarchical use in the case of šm‘ ‘hearing’ marks the hierarchical relationship between a hearing experiencer and an agent who produces speech or other auditory expressions, as in (7). (7) ’et qōlkā šāma‘tî baggān wā’îrā’ ‘I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid.’ (Gen 3:10) The speaker in (7), the first man, answers Yhwh who is searching for him. Hearing Yhwh’s voice and movement or, in this particular occurrence, his walk in the garden, cannot be inter-preted other than a sheer hierarchical interaction. Hearing God or his movement is restricted to prominent figures such as prophets, the ancestors of the people, Noah (who was chosen to rescue humankind and animals from extinction), or Job (whose faithfulness was tested by God). Hearing in these cases is always a non-volitional event, in which the hearer is usually addressed by God’s interrogation, commandment, or promise. Hence, a non-volitional use of šm‘ ‘hear-ing’ is often associated with hierarchy in the domain of Divinity, where God chooses his human hearers. In (7) this is emphasised by the fear that the man experiences when hearing God walk-ing in the garden, knowing that this may involve punishment for his disobedience to God’s commandment not to eat the forbidden fruit. Finally, the result also shows that clustering on the basis of hierarchy features does not reflect the semantic categories of the concepts in the way that the clustering with the total set of 37 features does (Figure 5.21). This is a clear example of the role language usage and context play in meaning. Concepts which are not inherently hierarchical, such as sensory perception and emotion, can receive hierarchical features in a particular context. Figure 7.24 presents the pro-portion of the three hierarchy features in the use of all six compared concepts (Hier = hierar-chical, CountHier = counter hierarchical, NonHier = non-hierarchical).

Figure 24: Differences in the proportion of hierarchy features of six concepts

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9


Hier CountHier NonHier



Figure 7.23: Cluster dendrogram on the basis of

hierarchy (3 features, distance matrix - ‘canberra’, agglomeration method - ‘ward.D2’)

Looking at the frequencies of the hierarchy features, it is indeed possible to trace some degree of similarity between the use of ’hb and that of hrg ‘killing’. In both cases, more than 50% of the occurrences have a hierarchical use (’hb 54%, hrg 59%), while less than 20% are non-hierarchical occurrences (i.e., 16% and 18% respectively). The difference between the two in counter-hierarchical use is slightly larger (’hb 30%, hrg 22%). This relative similarity in hier-archical use between ’hb and hrg is commensurate with the observed general hierarchical use of the first and, in effect, gives it more validity. The activity hrg denotes is more easily associ-ated with hierarchy than ’hb-events, i.e., the agent of a killing-event is more likely an individ-ual/people with power and/or higher status than the patient. Hence, the general hierarchical use of ’hb remains evident, also with respect to the more inherently hierarchical hrg. Another notable outcome of the hierarchy-based analysis, is the cluster of ‘hitting’/‘striking’ lexemes and ‘sadness’. Based on the association with agentivity and the element of power that both ‘hitting’/‘striking’ and ‘killing’ have, it would be expected that we find those two clus-tered together. Furthermore, the most frequent lexeme of ‘hitting’/‘striking’ in the dataset, nkh, denotes ‘killing’ in other contexts (not included in the analysis to avoid ambiguity), and indi-cates the conceptual association between ‘hitting’/’striking’ and ‘killing’ in BH. Still, the lex-emes of ‘hitting’/‘striking’ have the highest frequency (50%) of non-hierarchical use of all six lexemes. An explanation for this may be found in that, in contrast to hrg ‘killing’, lexemes of ‘hitting/striking’ also encode a relatively high frequency of events with an inanimate patient-participant (36%), for which hierarchy is irrelevant. In the case of ’hb, occurrences with inan-imate beloved-participants were also not counted as hierarchical, though their relative fre-quency is lower than that of inanimate patients of nkh ‘hitting/striking’.

hear

sad hit

see

love kill

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Height

The results for šm‘ ‘hearing’ are noteworthy as well. The use of this lexeme was found to be the most hierarchical (80%) of all six concepts. As the dendrogram in Figure 5.23 shows, šm‘ ‘hearing’ constitutes its own cluster. Hierarchical use in the case of šm‘ ‘hearing’ marks the hierarchical relationship between a hearing experiencer and an agent who produces speech or other auditory expressions, as in (7). (7) ’et qōlkā šāma‘tî baggān wā’îrā’ ‘I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid.’ (Gen 3:10) The speaker in (7), the first man, answers Yhwh who is searching for him. Hearing Yhwh’s voice and movement or, in this particular occurrence, his walk in the garden, cannot be inter-preted other than a sheer hierarchical interaction. Hearing God or his movement is restricted to prominent figures such as prophets, the ancestors of the people, Noah (who was chosen to rescue humankind and animals from extinction), or Job (whose faithfulness was tested by God). Hearing in these cases is always a non-volitional event, in which the hearer is usually addressed by God’s interrogation, commandment, or promise. Hence, a non-volitional use of šm‘ ‘hear-ing’ is often associated with hierarchy in the domain of Divinity, where God chooses his human hearers. In (7) this is emphasised by the fear that the man experiences when hearing God walk-ing in the garden, knowing that this may involve punishment for his disobedience to God’s commandment not to eat the forbidden fruit. Finally, the result also shows that clustering on the basis of hierarchy features does not reflect the semantic categories of the concepts in the way that the clustering with the total set of 37 features does (Figure 5.21). This is a clear example of the role language usage and context play in meaning. Concepts which are not inherently hierarchical, such as sensory perception and emotion, can receive hierarchical features in a particular context. Figure 7.24 presents the pro-portion of the three hierarchy features in the use of all six compared concepts (Hier = hierar-chical, CountHier = counter hierarchical, NonHier = non-hierarchical).

Figure 24: Differences in the proportion of hierarchy features of six concepts

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9


Hier CountHier NonHier


Chapter 7 ׀ 142

Based on the factor of cultural domain alone (10 features), the use of ’hb is more similar to the use of šm‘ ‘hearing’, and both are relatively similar to hrg ‘killing’ and the lexemes of sadness in the distribution over cultural domains, but less so to r’h ‘eyesight’ and nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting/striking’. As was mentioned above, the relevance of cultural domains to socialness is their (stronger or weaker) biblical-cultural and contextual association with social life.

Figure 7.25: Cluster dendrogram on the basis of cultural domain

(10 features, distance matrix - ‘canberra’, agglomeration method - ‘ward.D2’)

Figure 7. 26: Distribution of six concepts over different cultural domains

(DIV=Divinity, INABS=Inanimate Abstract Objects, ROM=Romance, KIN=Kinship, SOC=Social Relations, POL=Politics, COND=Conduct/Activity, ADULT=Adultery,

INCON=Inanimate Concrete Objects, Anim = Animate)

see hit

sad

kill

love

hear

45

67

8

Height

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

DIV ROM KIN POL SOC INABS INCON ADULT COND ANIM


The datasets show that the largest degree of similarity between ’hb and šm‘ ‘hearing’ is based on their occurrences in the domains Kinship, Inanimate Abstract, and Inanimate Concrete. The use of ’hb is, however, most frequent in the domain of Divinity, and in this domain it is most similar to the use of hrg ‘killing’, which is indicated by the relatively short distance between it and the cluster of ’hb and šm‘ ‘hearing’. Figure 7.26 presents the proportions of the occurrences of all six concepts in ten cultural domains. The factor of gender/animacy consists of the largest number of features (i.e., 19) of all fac-tors, what may have a direct influence on its relative weight in the analysis. Dividing this factor into three sub-categories based on semantic roles (i.e., experiencer-agent, theme-patient, and causer) and including each time a different category in the HAC analysis with the rest of the factors, did not yield different clustering. In all three tests, ’hb was clustered with r’h ‘eyesight’, šm‘ ‘hearing’ was ammalgemated to this cluster, hrg ‘killing’ and nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting/strik-ing’ were clustered together, and lexemes of sadness formed their own cluster. Generally, these results are similar to the result of the HAC analysis in which all 37 features are included (Figure 7.22). The analyses with the different sub-categories did though vary from the all-inclusive one, and to a lesser extent from each other, in the hight scores of clusters and amalgamation nodes. The differences indicate a stronger within-cluster and between-cluster similarity when individual sub-categories of gender/animacy are included than when all 19 features of this fac-tor were part of the analysis. Figure 7.27 presents the clustering on the basis of gender/animacy, in which ’hb is amalga-mated to the cluster of sensory perception. As the dendrogram shows, the only two concepts that cluster together are ‘see’ and ‘hear’, while the rest are hierarchically amalgamated to this cluster based on their distance from it. Of these four, ’hb is the most similar to the cluster.

Figure 7.27: Cluster dendrogram based on gender/animacy


sad

kill

hit

love

see

hear4

68

1012

Height



Based on the factor of cultural domain alone (10 features), the use of ’hb is more similar to the use of šm‘ ‘hearing’, and both are relatively similar to hrg ‘killing’ and the lexemes of sadness in the distribution over cultural domains, but less so to r’h ‘eyesight’ and nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting/striking’. As was mentioned above, the relevance of cultural domains to socialness is their (stronger or weaker) biblical-cultural and contextual association with social life.

Figure 7.25: Cluster dendrogram on the basis of cultural domain


Figure 7. 26: Distribution of six concepts over different cultural domains

(DIV=Divinity, INABS=Inanimate Abstract Objects, ROM=Romance, KIN=Kinship, SOC=Social Relations, POL=Politics, COND=Conduct/Activity, ADULT=Adultery,

INCON=Inanimate Concrete Objects, Anim = Animate)

see hit

sad

kill

love

hear

45

67

8

Height

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

DIV ROM KIN POL SOC INABS INCON ADULT COND ANIM


The datasets show that the largest degree of similarity between ’hb and šm‘ ‘hearing’ is based on their occurrences in the domains Kinship, Inanimate Abstract, and Inanimate Concrete. The use of ’hb is, however, most frequent in the domain of Divinity, and in this domain it is most similar to the use of hrg ‘killing’, which is indicated by the relatively short distance between it and the cluster of ’hb and šm‘ ‘hearing’. Figure 7.26 presents the proportions of the occurrences of all six concepts in ten cultural domains. The factor of gender/animacy consists of the largest number of features (i.e., 19) of all fac-tors, what may have a direct influence on its relative weight in the analysis. Dividing this factor into three sub-categories based on semantic roles (i.e., experiencer-agent, theme-patient, and causer) and including each time a different category in the HAC analysis with the rest of the factors, did not yield different clustering. In all three tests, ’hb was clustered with r’h ‘eyesight’, šm‘ ‘hearing’ was ammalgemated to this cluster, hrg ‘killing’ and nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting/strik-ing’ were clustered together, and lexemes of sadness formed their own cluster. Generally, these results are similar to the result of the HAC analysis in which all 37 features are included (Figure 7.22). The analyses with the different sub-categories did though vary from the all-inclusive one, and to a lesser extent from each other, in the hight scores of clusters and amalgamation nodes. The differences indicate a stronger within-cluster and between-cluster similarity when individual sub-categories of gender/animacy are included than when all 19 features of this fac-tor were part of the analysis. Figure 7.27 presents the clustering on the basis of gender/animacy, in which ’hb is amalga-mated to the cluster of sensory perception. As the dendrogram shows, the only two concepts that cluster together are ‘see’ and ‘hear’, while the rest are hierarchically amalgamated to this cluster based on their distance from it. Of these four, ’hb is the most similar to the cluster.

Figure 7.27: Cluster dendrogram based on gender/animacy


sad

kill

hit

love

see

hear4

68

1012

Height


Chapter 7 ׀ 144

Figures 7.28 presents proportions of gender/animacy features of experiencer/agent of the six compared concepts, followed by Figure 7.29 with proportions of gender/animacy fea-tures of theme/patient (in both figures, ANIM = non-human animate participant, i.e. an an-imal). The role of causer occurs only in the use of sadness lexemes, as was explained in 7.2.1.

Figure 28: Differences in proportion of gender/animacy of experiencer/agent of six concepts

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

M F MG DEI INAN ANIM


Figure 29: Differences in proportion of gender/animacy of theme/patient of six concepts

Figure 7.30: Cluster dendrogram based on volition

(3 features, distance matrix – ‘canberra’, agglomeration method – ‘ward.D2’) Clustering on the basis of volition yields a different result, as Figure 7.30 shows. Based on the three features of volition, there is a clear structure of three clusters, of which ’hb (love) and

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4



love see

sad

hear

hit

kill

01

23

4

Height



Figures 7.28 presents proportions of gender/animacy features of experiencer/agent of the six compared concepts, followed by Figure 7.29 with proportions of gender/animacy fea-tures of theme/patient (in both figures, ANIM = non-human animate participant, i.e. an an-imal). The role of causer occurs only in the use of sadness lexemes, as was explained in 7.2.1.

Figure 28: Differences in proportion of gender/animacy of experiencer/agent of six concepts

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7



Figure 29: Differences in proportion of gender/animacy of theme/patient of six concepts

Figure 7.30: Cluster dendrogram based on volition

(3 features, distance matrix – ‘canberra’, agglomeration method – ‘ward.D2’) Clustering on the basis of volition yields a different result, as Figure 7.30 shows. Based on the three features of volition, there is a clear structure of three clusters, of which ’hb (love) and

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4



love see

sad

hear

hit

kill

01

23

4

Height


Chapter 7 ׀ 146

‘see’ are the ones with the highest within-cluster similarity (i.e., they merge at the lowest point on the y-axis). Further, this cluster is more similar to that of ‘sad’ and ‘hear’ than to the cluster of ‘hit’ and ‘kill’. Volition most frequently occurs in the use of nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’ and hrg ‘kill-ing’; while the fewest occurrences of volition are in the use of ’hb and r’h ‘see. The volitional use of sadness lexemes (32%) refers to the causative verbs discussed in 7.2.1 and not to the experience of sadness. Figure 7.31 presents the proportions of volition features in the six com-pared conceps (Vol = volitional, Comm = commanded, NonVol = non-volitional).

Figure 7.31: Differences in proportion of volition features of six concepts

Examination of the different single-factor analyses shows that, except for hierarchy, ’hb is usually clustered with or amalgamated to the two lexemes of sensory perception, with varying degrees of distance to each of the two, depending on the factor. Also in the hierarchy-based clustering, r’h ‘eyesight’ is the most similar lexeme to the ’hb-hrg cluster (see Figure 7.23). Based on the results, it seems that the factors of gender/animacy and volition weigh the most heavily in the general cluster analysis of the 37 features. That is to say, these factors contribute the most to the overall similarities and differences between ’hb and the five other biblical con-cepts. The data of the features show that at the factor level the use of ’hb is most similar to that of r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ in volition and the sub-category of experiencer-agant that is part of gender/animacy. Interestingly, gender/animacy and volition also play a role in the main patterns that characterise the use of ’hb, namely gender-based hierarchy in the domains of Kinship and Adultery, and semantic-asymmetry in the domain of Divinity that is indicated by a prototypical (non-)volitional experiencer. To summarise, the results of the HAC show that on the basis of the four socialness-related factors, i.e., cultural domain, gender/animacy, social hierarchy, and volition, the use of ’hb is more similar to that of the sensory perception lexemes r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ (espe-cially the former) than to the lexemes of sadness, nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’, and hrg ‘killing’. These results along with the prominence of volition and gender/animacy are further discussed in the following section.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2


Vol Comm Non-Vol

7.3.3 Discussion and conclusions The results of this comparison of ’hb with the five other concepts show that a general associa-tion with socialness is not unique to the use of ’hb but likewise occurs in the use of the other concepts. The same can be said about a general male-dominance, which may simply reflect the themes of the biblical texts. On the basis of the four socialness-related factors, the use of ’hb appears to be most similar to that of the sensory perception lexemes r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’, and, in fact, none of the analyses place ’hb in a position distant from these two con-cepts. The first conclusion that can be drawn from the comparison is that, regardless of its use in the specific cultural domains, the socialness-related use of ’hb is not exceptional, but more probably a part of a broader pattern in BH. The use of each of the examined concepts in the present comparison is related to social aspects, particularly social hierarchy, and to different extents reflect the social order in one way or another. Furthermore, this comparison provides additional evidence to the idea that ’hb is not the only lexeme of emotion whose use is social-ness-related, as indicated in the use of sadness lexemes, and especially through causative verbs. This corresponds to similar findings in the studies of other emotions in BH, which were dis-cussed in Chapter 3. A particularly important outcome of this comparison is the relatively strong similarity be-tween the use of ’hb and that of the perception lexemes on the one hand, and the relatively weak similar features between the use of ’hb and the lexemes of sadness on the other. Not only are ’hb and sadness not clustered together, but the distance between them is relatively large in all of the analyses. The results of the present analysis indicate the existence of a conceptual, socialness-related, association between the experience and social interaction denoted by ’hb and those denoted by the sensory perception lexemes r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ in BH. This association is somewhat stronger than the association between ’hb and the other concepts included in the analysis. At first glance, this may not seem so odd, since both sensory percep-tion and the general experience of emotion are often based on input or stimulus. Certainly in the early stages of an emotional experience, it is a passive state, as, for example, the passive experience of sadness is caused by an external agent or event. Emotions, however, also have a distinguished element of expressiveness, thus, even a passive reaction such as sadness may be highly expressive in later stages. It is by now quite clear that the experience of emotion in BH is complex and often involves expressive aspects, such as an active reaction, as well as volition (see Chapter 3). This is also valid for the experience and social interaction denoted by the use of ’hb, in particular when different degrees of volition occur. And yet, the volitionality of ’hb resembles more the volitionality that occurs in the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ than in the use of the more inherently agentive concepts nkh, hlm, ḥvṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’ and hrg ‘killing’. Hence, the overall results of the analysis place ’hb in proximity with the lexemes of sensory perception, and entail a similar association of these two categories with socialness, but on the basis of hierarchy, as one aspect of socialness, ’hb is more associated with hrg ‘killing’. The results support the findings on ’hb in chapter 4, and show that this emotion in BH is com-plex, multifaceted, and its essence is closer to social interaction than to individual, inner state. In a more general perspective, the results of the HAC analysis, although considered here as exploratory rather than as statistically significant findings, suggest that a semantic category



‘see’ are the ones with the highest within-cluster similarity (i.e., they merge at the lowest point on the y-axis). Further, this cluster is more similar to that of ‘sad’ and ‘hear’ than to the cluster of ‘hit’ and ‘kill’. Volition most frequently occurs in the use of nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’ and hrg ‘kill-ing’; while the fewest occurrences of volition are in the use of ’hb and r’h ‘see. The volitional use of sadness lexemes (32%) refers to the causative verbs discussed in 7.2.1 and not to the experience of sadness. Figure 7.31 presents the proportions of volition features in the six com-pared conceps (Vol = volitional, Comm = commanded, NonVol = non-volitional).

Figure 7.31: Differences in proportion of volition features of six concepts

Examination of the different single-factor analyses shows that, except for hierarchy, ’hb is usually clustered with or amalgamated to the two lexemes of sensory perception, with varying degrees of distance to each of the two, depending on the factor. Also in the hierarchy-based clustering, r’h ‘eyesight’ is the most similar lexeme to the ’hb-hrg cluster (see Figure 7.23). Based on the results, it seems that the factors of gender/animacy and volition weigh the most heavily in the general cluster analysis of the 37 features. That is to say, these factors contribute the most to the overall similarities and differences between ’hb and the five other biblical con-cepts. The data of the features show that at the factor level the use of ’hb is most similar to that of r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ in volition and the sub-category of experiencer-agant that is part of gender/animacy. Interestingly, gender/animacy and volition also play a role in the main patterns that characterise the use of ’hb, namely gender-based hierarchy in the domains of Kinship and Adultery, and semantic-asymmetry in the domain of Divinity that is indicated by a prototypical (non-)volitional experiencer. To summarise, the results of the HAC show that on the basis of the four socialness-related factors, i.e., cultural domain, gender/animacy, social hierarchy, and volition, the use of ’hb is more similar to that of the sensory perception lexemes r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ (espe-cially the former) than to the lexemes of sadness, nkh, hlm, ḥbṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’, and hrg ‘killing’. These results along with the prominence of volition and gender/animacy are further discussed in the following section.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2


Vol Comm Non-Vol

7.3.3 Discussion and conclusions The results of this comparison of ’hb with the five other concepts show that a general associa-tion with socialness is not unique to the use of ’hb but likewise occurs in the use of the other concepts. The same can be said about a general male-dominance, which may simply reflect the themes of the biblical texts. On the basis of the four socialness-related factors, the use of ’hb appears to be most similar to that of the sensory perception lexemes r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’, and, in fact, none of the analyses place ’hb in a position distant from these two con-cepts. The first conclusion that can be drawn from the comparison is that, regardless of its use in the specific cultural domains, the socialness-related use of ’hb is not exceptional, but more probably a part of a broader pattern in BH. The use of each of the examined concepts in the present comparison is related to social aspects, particularly social hierarchy, and to different extents reflect the social order in one way or another. Furthermore, this comparison provides additional evidence to the idea that ’hb is not the only lexeme of emotion whose use is social-ness-related, as indicated in the use of sadness lexemes, and especially through causative verbs. This corresponds to similar findings in the studies of other emotions in BH, which were dis-cussed in Chapter 3. A particularly important outcome of this comparison is the relatively strong similarity be-tween the use of ’hb and that of the perception lexemes on the one hand, and the relatively weak similar features between the use of ’hb and the lexemes of sadness on the other. Not only are ’hb and sadness not clustered together, but the distance between them is relatively large in all of the analyses. The results of the present analysis indicate the existence of a conceptual, socialness-related, association between the experience and social interaction denoted by ’hb and those denoted by the sensory perception lexemes r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ in BH. This association is somewhat stronger than the association between ’hb and the other concepts included in the analysis. At first glance, this may not seem so odd, since both sensory percep-tion and the general experience of emotion are often based on input or stimulus. Certainly in the early stages of an emotional experience, it is a passive state, as, for example, the passive experience of sadness is caused by an external agent or event. Emotions, however, also have a distinguished element of expressiveness, thus, even a passive reaction such as sadness may be highly expressive in later stages. It is by now quite clear that the experience of emotion in BH is complex and often involves expressive aspects, such as an active reaction, as well as volition (see Chapter 3). This is also valid for the experience and social interaction denoted by the use of ’hb, in particular when different degrees of volition occur. And yet, the volitionality of ’hb resembles more the volitionality that occurs in the use of r’h ‘eyesight’ and šm‘ ‘hearing’ than in the use of the more inherently agentive concepts nkh, hlm, ḥvṭ ‘hitting’/’striking’ and hrg ‘killing’. Hence, the overall results of the analysis place ’hb in proximity with the lexemes of sensory perception, and entail a similar association of these two categories with socialness, but on the basis of hierarchy, as one aspect of socialness, ’hb is more associated with hrg ‘killing’. The results support the findings on ’hb in chapter 4, and show that this emotion in BH is com-plex, multifaceted, and its essence is closer to social interaction than to individual, inner state. In a more general perspective, the results of the HAC analysis, although considered here as exploratory rather than as statistically significant findings, suggest that a semantic category


Chapter 7 ׀ 148

such as ‘emotion’, does not necessarily predict a similar behaviour or use of its members in BH, at least with respect to socialness. In effect, the biblical semantic categorisation cannot and should not straightforwardly be compared with the semantic categorisation of modern (Western) languages, but should be examined within its own contexts as was done here. Put another way, on the basis of the four socialness-related factors, (dis)similarity in the use of concepts is not necessarily category-dependent; rather, this is based on shared features and is therefore cross-categorical. The HAC analysis enables a comparison of emotions to destruc-tion, for example, on the basis of their use instead of on the basis of their semantic classifica-tion. These results may also raise further questions. As was mentioned above, the two most prom-inent factors in the HAC analysis, volition and gender/animacy, are strongly involved in the two main patterns observed in the use of ’hb, namely gender-hierarchy and semantic-asym-metry. These patterns were not straightforwardly included as factors in the HAC analysis, which instead used the more general factors gender/animacy and volition. What this implies is that similar factors underlie both the patterns that best define the use of ’hb as well as the (dis)similarities between ’hb and the other five concepts. Thus, we are left with the question of how to account for this seeming contrast in the underlying factors, which on the one hand are strongly associated with the particular character of ’hb and on the hand are also involved in the use of other concepts. The answer seems to lie in a more adequate distinction between the patterns that characterise ’hb and the more general factors used in the HAC analysis. Accord-ingly, the specific patterns of ’hb are either elements of the factors or a specific manifestation of them; they characterise the use of ’hb, but not the use of other concepts in which the factors are involved in somewhat different ways. The discussion in the following sub-sections will make this point clear. 7.3.3.1 Gender-based hierarchy As with the use of ’hb, also in the use of other lexemes do women occur less frequently (or are even entirely absent) in both the role of the experiencer (i.e., the lexemes of sadness and per-ception) and in the role of the agent (i.e., the causative verbs of sadness, the lexemes of pow-erful contact and destruction) than men do in these roles. In the use of hrg ‘killing’, women never occur in the role of the agent.33 However, these findings do not necessarily indicate gen-der-based hierarchy in these categories; rather, they seem to reflect the more general male-dominance of the biblical texts. The underrepresentation of female-experiencers with, for ex-ample, lexemes of sadness is clear, but this is not necessarily a well-founded indication of gender-based hierarchy since in every occurrence of women in the role of experiencer in this category, gender is either generic or figurative, as in (8), and does not refer to a woman with an individual identity. The wife in (8) is a metaphor for Jerusalem, which, in turn, is a meton-ymy of the people. 33 It is noteworthy that one of the most courageous narratives in BH, the killing of Sisera (chief of army for Jabin, king of Canaan) by Jael, wife of Heber, in Judg (4:21), has a female protagonist. The lexeme hrg ‘killing’ is not used in this narrative, neither in Deborah’s praise of the killing in Judg (5:26), and instead the manner of killing is described by the use of other lexemes.

(8) kî-kə’iššâ ‘ăzûbâ wa‘ăṣûbat rûaḥ qərā’āk yāhwəh ‘For Yhwh has called you like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit.’ (Isa 54:6) Generic and figurative references to women occur also in the use of ’hb (and other lexemes) but, as was argued in Chapter 4, in contrast to sadness, women with an individual identity occur in the other datasets as well. The individual identities of women and men contribute to the concreteness of the text and the event in question and, therefore, may serve as a more robust indication of patterns. Apparently, the use of ’hb is more associated with gender-based social hierarchy than the use of lexemes from the other five categories are. Gender-hierarchy is, therefore, not only a prominent pattern in the use of ’hb in the cultural domains of Kinship and Adultery, but it also marks a fundamental difference between ’hb and the lexemes of sadness, sensory perception, powerful contact, and destruction. It should, however, be stressed once more that gender in BH is intricately intertwined with higher social status and roles, such as king, chief, and priest, which are usually fulfilled by men. This general pattern is reflected in the domain of kinship by the strong relation between gender-hierarchy and patriarchy, and by the more frequent pres-ence of women with an individual identity as was argued in Chapter 4. 7.3.3.2 Semantic asymmetry The semantic asymmetry of ’hb in the domain of Divinity entails differing degrees of volition. Volition was one of the factors included in the comparison between ’hb and the other five concepts, consisting of three features, volitional, commanded, and non-volitional. Although volitionality is to different extents part of the meaning of all the lexemes (relatively more in hrg ‘killing’ and less in r’h ‘eyesight’), asymmetry in meaning with regard to and regardless of volition was found only in the use of ’hb. This is clearly illustrated by šm‘ ‘hearing’, which has the highest frequency of the com-manded use (20%) among all six concepts. Similar to ’hb, the commanded use of šm‘ typically occurs in the domain of Divinity (50%) and to a lesser extent in Social Relations (11%), but in contrast to ’hb it also occurs in Kinship (22%) and Inanimate Concrete and Inanimate Abstract domains (17%). Although the prototypical use of šm‘ ‘hearing’ is based on social hierarchy, it is also used counter-hierarchically in the domain of Divinity, i.e., it expresses an exclamation by humans towards God, calling for his attention, and God’s subsequent attention to the caller, as in (9). Such occurrences contrast the use of ’hb in Divinity, where commandment is always unidirectional from God to humans. (9) a. šəma‘ yāhwəh qôlî ’eqrā’ wəḥānnēnî wa‘ănēnî ‘Hear, Yhwh, my voice when I cry, and have mercy on me and answer me!’ (Psa 27:7) b. šāma‘ yāhwəh təḥinnātî yāhwəh təpillātî yiqqāḥ ‘Yhwh has heard my plea; Yhwh will take my prayer.’ (Psa 6:10)



such as ‘emotion’, does not necessarily predict a similar behaviour or use of its members in BH, at least with respect to socialness. In effect, the biblical semantic categorisation cannot and should not straightforwardly be compared with the semantic categorisation of modern (Western) languages, but should be examined within its own contexts as was done here. Put another way, on the basis of the four socialness-related factors, (dis)similarity in the use of concepts is not necessarily category-dependent; rather, this is based on shared features and is therefore cross-categorical. The HAC analysis enables a comparison of emotions to destruc-tion, for example, on the basis of their use instead of on the basis of their semantic classifica-tion. These results may also raise further questions. As was mentioned above, the two most prom-inent factors in the HAC analysis, volition and gender/animacy, are strongly involved in the two main patterns observed in the use of ’hb, namely gender-hierarchy and semantic-asym-metry. These patterns were not straightforwardly included as factors in the HAC analysis, which instead used the more general factors gender/animacy and volition. What this implies is that similar factors underlie both the patterns that best define the use of ’hb as well as the (dis)similarities between ’hb and the other five concepts. Thus, we are left with the question of how to account for this seeming contrast in the underlying factors, which on the one hand are strongly associated with the particular character of ’hb and on the hand are also involved in the use of other concepts. The answer seems to lie in a more adequate distinction between the patterns that characterise ’hb and the more general factors used in the HAC analysis. Accord-ingly, the specific patterns of ’hb are either elements of the factors or a specific manifestation of them; they characterise the use of ’hb, but not the use of other concepts in which the factors are involved in somewhat different ways. The discussion in the following sub-sections will make this point clear. 7.3.3.1 Gender-based hierarchy As with the use of ’hb, also in the use of other lexemes do women occur less frequently (or are even entirely absent) in both the role of the experiencer (i.e., the lexemes of sadness and per-ception) and in the role of the agent (i.e., the causative verbs of sadness, the lexemes of pow-erful contact and destruction) than men do in these roles. In the use of hrg ‘killing’, women never occur in the role of the agent.33 However, these findings do not necessarily indicate gen-der-based hierarchy in these categories; rather, they seem to reflect the more general male-dominance of the biblical texts. The underrepresentation of female-experiencers with, for ex-ample, lexemes of sadness is clear, but this is not necessarily a well-founded indication of gender-based hierarchy since in every occurrence of women in the role of experiencer in this category, gender is either generic or figurative, as in (8), and does not refer to a woman with an individual identity. The wife in (8) is a metaphor for Jerusalem, which, in turn, is a meton-ymy of the people. 33 It is noteworthy that one of the most courageous narratives in BH, the killing of Sisera (chief of army for Jabin, king of Canaan) by Jael, wife of Heber, in Judg (4:21), has a female protagonist. The lexeme hrg ‘killing’ is not used in this narrative, neither in Deborah’s praise of the killing in Judg (5:26), and instead the manner of killing is described by the use of other lexemes.

(8) kî-kə’iššâ ‘ăzûbâ wa‘ăṣûbat rûaḥ qərā’āk yāhwəh ‘For Yhwh has called you like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit.’ (Isa 54:6) Generic and figurative references to women occur also in the use of ’hb (and other lexemes) but, as was argued in Chapter 4, in contrast to sadness, women with an individual identity occur in the other datasets as well. The individual identities of women and men contribute to the concreteness of the text and the event in question and, therefore, may serve as a more robust indication of patterns. Apparently, the use of ’hb is more associated with gender-based social hierarchy than the use of lexemes from the other five categories are. Gender-hierarchy is, therefore, not only a prominent pattern in the use of ’hb in the cultural domains of Kinship and Adultery, but it also marks a fundamental difference between ’hb and the lexemes of sadness, sensory perception, powerful contact, and destruction. It should, however, be stressed once more that gender in BH is intricately intertwined with higher social status and roles, such as king, chief, and priest, which are usually fulfilled by men. This general pattern is reflected in the domain of kinship by the strong relation between gender-hierarchy and patriarchy, and by the more frequent pres-ence of women with an individual identity as was argued in Chapter 4. 7.3.3.2 Semantic asymmetry The semantic asymmetry of ’hb in the domain of Divinity entails differing degrees of volition. Volition was one of the factors included in the comparison between ’hb and the other five concepts, consisting of three features, volitional, commanded, and non-volitional. Although volitionality is to different extents part of the meaning of all the lexemes (relatively more in hrg ‘killing’ and less in r’h ‘eyesight’), asymmetry in meaning with regard to and regardless of volition was found only in the use of ’hb. This is clearly illustrated by šm‘ ‘hearing’, which has the highest frequency of the com-manded use (20%) among all six concepts. Similar to ’hb, the commanded use of šm‘ typically occurs in the domain of Divinity (50%) and to a lesser extent in Social Relations (11%), but in contrast to ’hb it also occurs in Kinship (22%) and Inanimate Concrete and Inanimate Abstract domains (17%). Although the prototypical use of šm‘ ‘hearing’ is based on social hierarchy, it is also used counter-hierarchically in the domain of Divinity, i.e., it expresses an exclamation by humans towards God, calling for his attention, and God’s subsequent attention to the caller, as in (9). Such occurrences contrast the use of ’hb in Divinity, where commandment is always unidirectional from God to humans. (9) a. šəma‘ yāhwəh qôlî ’eqrā’ wəḥānnēnî wa‘ănēnî ‘Hear, Yhwh, my voice when I cry, and have mercy on me and answer me!’ (Psa 27:7) b. šāma‘ yāhwəh təḥinnātî yāhwəh təpillātî yiqqāḥ ‘Yhwh has heard my plea; Yhwh will take my prayer.’ (Psa 6:10)


Chapter 7 ׀ 150

In (9a), the exclamation is a plea for mercy and attention, expressed by the imperative form. In (9b), šm‘ denotes ‘hearing’, but the second clause implies the attention of God and his willing-ness to hear the plea. It is thus clear that the use of šm‘ in Divinity is not semantically asym-metrical, as in the case of ’hb in this domain, since both God and humans can be a volitional and commanded experiencer of hearing-events. In the domain of Kinship, the commanded use of šm‘ is unidirectional, from father to son, and thus an examination of (a)symmetry in meaning there is irrelevant for our discussion. Likewise, in the use of the other four concepts, the three features of volition (volitional, non-volitional, and commanded) may be related to social hier-archy as it is in the use of ’hb, but in none of these concepts is this also indicated by semantic asymmetry. 7.4 Summary This comparison between ’hb and the lexemes of five other categories in BH (i.e., sadness, sensory perception, powerful contact, and destruction) yielded a general similarity between the different lexemes, but with some important nuanced differences. Similarity was found in the general association between the use of the lexemes and social hierarchy in BH, according to which experiencers of ’hb-events as well as experiencers and agents of the other events (except for ‘hitting/striking’) prototypically have a relatively higher social status than do the themes and patients. Furthermore, the use of all lexemes of the six concepts indicated a general male-dominance, though this may simply be a reflection of the general male-dominance in the themes of the biblical texts. On the basis of four factors—namely cultural domain, gender-animacy, social hierarchy, and volition—the use of ’hb was found to be most similar to the use of the perception lexemes, and especially to the use of r’h ‘eyesight’. The assumed dominance of volition and gender/animacy in the results was related to the observed socialness of ’hb. Specific elements, or manifestations, of these two factors underlie the two main patterns observed for ’hb, namely gender-based hierarchy in Kinship and Adul-tery and semantic asymmetry in Divinity. These two patterns showed that the use of ’hb was not only generally hierarchical, as in the use of lexemes from other categories, but also implied a specific relation between ’hb and socialness. In other words, the use of ’hb does not simply reflect the general social hierarchy and male-dominance of the biblical texts, as suggested in different ways by Moran (1963), Ackerman (2002), Lapsley (2003), van Wolde (2008), and Bosman (2011) for example, but it also indicates specific associations with social hierarchy and social order that the lexemes from the other categories do not have. The results support the conclusions of Chapter 6, in which the socialness of ’hb was specified in relation to the soci-ocultural order of ancient Israel.

Chapter 8. The sociocultural conceptualisation of ḥen ‘favour’34 8.1 Introduction The previous chapters have yielded a complex representation of ’hb in BH, which shows its association with the social order of ancient Israel and the related polysemy. It was shown in different ways, that the prototypical hierarchy in the use of ’hb does not originate from an inherent hierarchical character, but rather that the use of the lexeme in the Hebrew Bible is based on the very primary and basic relationships that it encodes, which are part of the general hierarchical structure of ancient Israelite culture. The present chapter presents the use of an-other emotive concept in BH, ḥen ‘favour’, in its occurrences within the idiomatic construction māṣā ’ḥēn bə‘êynêy ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’. This construction conveys positive affection, expressed from God to humans or among humans. Whereas X refers to the subject and agent, it is in fact a passive recipient of favour. Y, in turn, is the constituent part with the agentive role of favouring X, i.e., ‘Y favours X’. This construction reflects and at the same time empha-sises a social asymmetry in the communication of favour, which is based on hierarchy. It is argued here that ḥēn in BH is expressed from entities with a relatively higher status to entities with a relatively lower status. It will be shown that, similar to ’hb, ḥēn is also used to stress significant ideas in ancient Israelite culture, but, in contrast to ’hb, ḥēn in the Hebrew Bible is inherently hierarchical. The present chapter demonstrates another facet of the involvement of emotions in the social order of ancient Israel as reflected in the Hebrew Bible and, thereby, contributes to the conceptualisation of ’hb and to the more general discussion on the concep-tualisation of emotions in BH. The idiomatic construction māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘êynêy ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’ expresses a positive attitude or affection. Take, for example, (1), in which the narrator tells us that the biblical figure Noah has found favour in the eyes of Yhwh. (1) wənōaḥ māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênê yāhwəh ‘But Noah has found favour in the eyes of Yhwh.’ (Gen 6:8) Although the schematic meaning of ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’ is ‘Y favours X’, the precise interpretation of ḥēn and of the construction as a whole is context-dependent. A positive atti-tude in Y toward X is nevertheless clear in all the different contexts where the construction occurs. The subject-verb order in the construction may alternate according to the broader gram-matical structure in which it is embedded, as (2) shows: (2) hinnēh-nā’ māṣā’ ‘abdəkā ḥēn bə‘ênêkā ‘Behold, your servant has found (in source: ‘has found your servant’)

favour in your eyes.’ (Gen 19:19)

34 This chapter is a revised version of: Vardi, R. (2015), Favour: Construction of affection in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew studies, 56, 49-69.


In (9a), the exclamation is a plea for mercy and attention, expressed by the imperative form. In (9b), šm‘ denotes ‘hearing’, but the second clause implies the attention of God and his willing-ness to hear the plea. It is thus clear that the use of šm‘ in Divinity is not semantically asym-metrical, as in the case of ’hb in this domain, since both God and humans can be a volitional and commanded experiencer of hearing-events. In the domain of Kinship, the commanded use of šm‘ is unidirectional, from father to son, and thus an examination of (a)symmetry in meaning there is irrelevant for our discussion. Likewise, in the use of the other four concepts, the three features of volition (volitional, non-volitional, and commanded) may be related to social hier-archy as it is in the use of ’hb, but in none of these concepts is this also indicated by semantic asymmetry. 7.4 Summary This comparison between ’hb and the lexemes of five other categories in BH (i.e., sadness, sensory perception, powerful contact, and destruction) yielded a general similarity between the different lexemes, but with some important nuanced differences. Similarity was found in the general association between the use of the lexemes and social hierarchy in BH, according to which experiencers of ’hb-events as well as experiencers and agents of the other events (except for ‘hitting/striking’) prototypically have a relatively higher social status than do the themes and patients. Furthermore, the use of all lexemes of the six concepts indicated a general male-dominance, though this may simply be a reflection of the general male-dominance in the themes of the biblical texts. On the basis of four factors—namely cultural domain, gender-animacy, social hierarchy, and volition—the use of ’hb was found to be most similar to the use of the perception lexemes, and especially to the use of r’h ‘eyesight’. The assumed dominance of volition and gender/animacy in the results was related to the observed socialness of ’hb. Specific elements, or manifestations, of these two factors underlie the two main patterns observed for ’hb, namely gender-based hierarchy in Kinship and Adul-tery and semantic asymmetry in Divinity. These two patterns showed that the use of ’hb was not only generally hierarchical, as in the use of lexemes from other categories, but also implied a specific relation between ’hb and socialness. In other words, the use of ’hb does not simply reflect the general social hierarchy and male-dominance of the biblical texts, as suggested in different ways by Moran (1963), Ackerman (2002), Lapsley (2003), van Wolde (2008), and Bosman (2011) for example, but it also indicates specific associations with social hierarchy and social order that the lexemes from the other categories do not have. The results support the conclusions of Chapter 6, in which the socialness of ’hb was specified in relation to the soci-ocultural order of ancient Israel.

Chapter 8. The sociocultural conceptualisation of ḥen ‘favour’34 8.1 Introduction The previous chapters have yielded a complex representation of ’hb in BH, which shows its association with the social order of ancient Israel and the related polysemy. It was shown in different ways, that the prototypical hierarchy in the use of ’hb does not originate from an inherent hierarchical character, but rather that the use of the lexeme in the Hebrew Bible is based on the very primary and basic relationships that it encodes, which are part of the general hierarchical structure of ancient Israelite culture. The present chapter presents the use of an-other emotive concept in BH, ḥen ‘favour’, in its occurrences within the idiomatic construction māṣā ’ḥēn bə‘êynêy ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’. This construction conveys positive affection, expressed from God to humans or among humans. Whereas X refers to the subject and agent, it is in fact a passive recipient of favour. Y, in turn, is the constituent part with the agentive role of favouring X, i.e., ‘Y favours X’. This construction reflects and at the same time empha-sises a social asymmetry in the communication of favour, which is based on hierarchy. It is argued here that ḥēn in BH is expressed from entities with a relatively higher status to entities with a relatively lower status. It will be shown that, similar to ’hb, ḥēn is also used to stress significant ideas in ancient Israelite culture, but, in contrast to ’hb, ḥēn in the Hebrew Bible is inherently hierarchical. The present chapter demonstrates another facet of the involvement of emotions in the social order of ancient Israel as reflected in the Hebrew Bible and, thereby, contributes to the conceptualisation of ’hb and to the more general discussion on the concep-tualisation of emotions in BH. The idiomatic construction māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘êynêy ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’ expresses a positive attitude or affection. Take, for example, (1), in which the narrator tells us that the biblical figure Noah has found favour in the eyes of Yhwh. (1) wənōaḥ māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênê yāhwəh ‘But Noah has found favour in the eyes of Yhwh.’ (Gen 6:8) Although the schematic meaning of ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’ is ‘Y favours X’, the precise interpretation of ḥēn and of the construction as a whole is context-dependent. A positive atti-tude in Y toward X is nevertheless clear in all the different contexts where the construction occurs. The subject-verb order in the construction may alternate according to the broader gram-matical structure in which it is embedded, as (2) shows: (2) hinnēh-nā’ māṣā’ ‘abdəkā ḥēn bə‘ênêkā ‘Behold, your servant has found (in source: ‘has found your servant’)

favour in your eyes.’ (Gen 19:19)

34 This chapter is a revised version of: Vardi, R. (2015), Favour: Construction of affection in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew studies, 56, 49-69.


Chapter 8 ׀ 152

A grammatical examination of the construction yields a syntactic-semantic mismatch in the grammatical relations between the constituents. The finder of favour, the grammatical subject and agent X, appears to be the object and theme of favour. Y, in whose eyes favour is found, is in fact the subject and experiencer of favour. This mismatch is part of the construction’s figurative character that renders the entity with the semantic role of theme, that is, the recipient of favour, active in receiving favour from Y. The present study examines the cognitive-cultural mechanisms that possibly played a role in the emergence of the construction and their implica-tions as far as the conceptualisation of ḥēn ‘favour’ in BH is concerned. In order to address these issues, an examination of the construction ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’ (henceforth [X ffi Y]) has been conducted in all its contexts in BH. In particular, the sociolinguistic distribution (e.g., with regard to the gender and social status of the parties and the relationships between them) as well as the linguistic and biblical settings in which this construction occurs have been analysed. This examination provides insight into the cognitive-cultural and pragmatic motivations in the use of [X ffi Y] and the relation between them. Before moving on to the grammatical analysis of [X ffi Y], it is important to note that ‘fa-vour’ is not the precise meaning of ḥēn in the Hebrew source. Translations of this word, derived from the stem ḥnn that conveys the ideas of compassion, mercy, pardon, and plea, usually assume that ‘favour’ or ‘grace’ is the dominant sense, especially in the discussed construction. However, there are other semantic elements present, such as kindness, pleasantness, loveliness, affability, and feminine beauty, elegance, and tenderness (see Kaddari 2006; Bosman 2011). The present study thus uses ‘favour’ as the equivalent of ḥēn strictly for the sake of conven-ience. The following sections deal with the different aspects involved in the emergence and use of [X ffi Y], starting with the general meaning and distribution of the construction in section 2. The grammatical structure of the construction and the ancient Israelite cultural conception of favour are discussed in section 3. Section 4 deals with the sociocultural identity of X and Y, specifying the pragmatic functions of the construction in its various contexts. In section 5 the mechanism of embodiment is considered as a basic cognitive force underlying the emergence of [X ffi Y]. Section 6 offers a discussion and conclusions. 8.2 Meaning, frequency, and general distribution of [X ffi Y] As was mentioned above, [X ffi Y] is an emotive idiomatic construction, conveying the fol-lowing schematic meaning: ‘Y favours X’. The precise meaning of the construction is depend-ent on a combination of (a) the linguistic form in which it is embedded (e.g., request), (b) the biblical context, and (c) the cultural domain in which it occurs. A common element to the meaning in all occurrences of [X ffi Y] is the concept of the exceptionality of X or that X constitutes a contrast from a norm or from other persons. This exception/contrast is either de-sirable by X or implied by the words or behaviour of Y towards X. In (1) above, Noah’s status of being favoured by Yhwh stands in contrast to the regret and grief the deity feels toward the rest of humankind, its own creation. This is indicated by the preceding text as well as by the particle wə- ‘but’ at the beginning of the clause, which marks this contrast. The latter is also the pragmatic function of the construction in this context, as it emphasises the motivation for

the flood in the narrative that follows. In other cases, X can express a wish to be favoured by Y: thus, in (3) Hannah seeks Eli’s approval: (3) wattō’mer timṣā’ šipḥātkā ḥēn bə‘ênêkā

‘And she said: “may your maidservant find favour in your eyes”.’ (1 Sam 1:18)

This shows that the construction can appear as a proposition, and it is indeed often embedded in a larger sentence, conditional (i.e., stating a precondition of receiving favour) or other. It occurs 41 times in the Hebrew Bible, referring in the different contexts to different types of relationships between X and Y, such as that between a human and the deity (see Appendix II for the data). In every occurrence of the construction the role of Y is filled exclusively by a male.35 In 39 of the total occurrences (95%), the construction is used in narrative texts where it is often cited as speech; in the remaining two occurrences (5%), it appears in a prescrip-tive/instructive text (Deut 24:1) and a wisdom text (Prov 3:4). An analysis of the construction’s distribution yields three major cultural domains for ḥēn-events, namely (i) Politics, (ii) Divin-ity, (iii) Kinship. These three domains accommodate 83% of the total occurrences of [X ffi Y]; the remaining 17% are distributed over four other domains, namely the mixed domain Kin-ship/Politics, Friendship, Cultus, and the mixed domain Deity/Social Relations (see Table 8.1).36

Category Frequency Proportion

Politics 14 34% Divinity 13 32% Kinship 7 17% Kinship/Politics 3 7% Friendship 2 5% Cultus 1 2.5% Divinity/Social Relations 1 2.5% Total 41 100%

Table 8.1: Cultural domains (ordered by frequency) in which [X ffi Y] occurs

Within these categories X and Y have different sociocultural identities and, accordingly, dif-ferent types of relationships. For instance, the cultural domain in (4) is Politics and the rela-tionship between X and Y is socioculturally hierarchical. (4) ya‘ămod-nā’ dāwid ləppānay kî-māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênāy

35 Unlike in the other forty occurrences of the construction, Esth 8:5 has “before Y’s face” instead of “in Y’s eyes.” This instance was included in the present paper’s dataset (see Appendix II) since it contains the essential elements of ‘favour’ and ‘eyes’ and conveys the basic meaning of [X ffi Y]. 36 The cultural domains Cultus was not used in the analysis of ’hb and the other five concepts since none of the uses of them clearly occurred in this domain. In general, favour events may involve more than one category, and therefore the specific cultural domain was determined by the dominant context of the event. Two cases, kin-ship/politics divinity/social relations, are combinations of two categories.


The sociocultural conceptualisation of ḥen ‘favour’ 153 ׀

A grammatical examination of the construction yields a syntactic-semantic mismatch in the grammatical relations between the constituents. The finder of favour, the grammatical subject and agent X, appears to be the object and theme of favour. Y, in whose eyes favour is found, is in fact the subject and experiencer of favour. This mismatch is part of the construction’s figurative character that renders the entity with the semantic role of theme, that is, the recipient of favour, active in receiving favour from Y. The present study examines the cognitive-cultural mechanisms that possibly played a role in the emergence of the construction and their implica-tions as far as the conceptualisation of ḥēn ‘favour’ in BH is concerned. In order to address these issues, an examination of the construction ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’ (henceforth [X ffi Y]) has been conducted in all its contexts in BH. In particular, the sociolinguistic distribution (e.g., with regard to the gender and social status of the parties and the relationships between them) as well as the linguistic and biblical settings in which this construction occurs have been analysed. This examination provides insight into the cognitive-cultural and pragmatic motivations in the use of [X ffi Y] and the relation between them. Before moving on to the grammatical analysis of [X ffi Y], it is important to note that ‘fa-vour’ is not the precise meaning of ḥēn in the Hebrew source. Translations of this word, derived from the stem ḥnn that conveys the ideas of compassion, mercy, pardon, and plea, usually assume that ‘favour’ or ‘grace’ is the dominant sense, especially in the discussed construction. However, there are other semantic elements present, such as kindness, pleasantness, loveliness, affability, and feminine beauty, elegance, and tenderness (see Kaddari 2006; Bosman 2011). The present study thus uses ‘favour’ as the equivalent of ḥēn strictly for the sake of conven-ience. The following sections deal with the different aspects involved in the emergence and use of [X ffi Y], starting with the general meaning and distribution of the construction in section 2. The grammatical structure of the construction and the ancient Israelite cultural conception of favour are discussed in section 3. Section 4 deals with the sociocultural identity of X and Y, specifying the pragmatic functions of the construction in its various contexts. In section 5 the mechanism of embodiment is considered as a basic cognitive force underlying the emergence of [X ffi Y]. Section 6 offers a discussion and conclusions. 8.2 Meaning, frequency, and general distribution of [X ffi Y] As was mentioned above, [X ffi Y] is an emotive idiomatic construction, conveying the fol-lowing schematic meaning: ‘Y favours X’. The precise meaning of the construction is depend-ent on a combination of (a) the linguistic form in which it is embedded (e.g., request), (b) the biblical context, and (c) the cultural domain in which it occurs. A common element to the meaning in all occurrences of [X ffi Y] is the concept of the exceptionality of X or that X constitutes a contrast from a norm or from other persons. This exception/contrast is either de-sirable by X or implied by the words or behaviour of Y towards X. In (1) above, Noah’s status of being favoured by Yhwh stands in contrast to the regret and grief the deity feels toward the rest of humankind, its own creation. This is indicated by the preceding text as well as by the particle wə- ‘but’ at the beginning of the clause, which marks this contrast. The latter is also the pragmatic function of the construction in this context, as it emphasises the motivation for

the flood in the narrative that follows. In other cases, X can express a wish to be favoured by Y: thus, in (3) Hannah seeks Eli’s approval: (3) wattō’mer timṣā’ šipḥātkā ḥēn bə‘ênêkā

‘And she said: “may your maidservant find favour in your eyes”.’ (1 Sam 1:18)

This shows that the construction can appear as a proposition, and it is indeed often embedded in a larger sentence, conditional (i.e., stating a precondition of receiving favour) or other. It occurs 41 times in the Hebrew Bible, referring in the different contexts to different types of relationships between X and Y, such as that between a human and the deity (see Appendix II for the data). In every occurrence of the construction the role of Y is filled exclusively by a male.35 In 39 of the total occurrences (95%), the construction is used in narrative texts where it is often cited as speech; in the remaining two occurrences (5%), it appears in a prescrip-tive/instructive text (Deut 24:1) and a wisdom text (Prov 3:4). An analysis of the construction’s distribution yields three major cultural domains for ḥēn-events, namely (i) Politics, (ii) Divin-ity, (iii) Kinship. These three domains accommodate 83% of the total occurrences of [X ffi Y]; the remaining 17% are distributed over four other domains, namely the mixed domain Kin-ship/Politics, Friendship, Cultus, and the mixed domain Deity/Social Relations (see Table 8.1).36

Category Frequency Proportion

Politics 14 34% Divinity 13 32% Kinship 7 17% Kinship/Politics 3 7% Friendship 2 5% Cultus 1 2.5% Divinity/Social Relations 1 2.5% Total 41 100%

Table 8.1: Cultural domains (ordered by frequency) in which [X ffi Y] occurs

Within these categories X and Y have different sociocultural identities and, accordingly, dif-ferent types of relationships. For instance, the cultural domain in (4) is Politics and the rela-tionship between X and Y is socioculturally hierarchical. (4) ya‘ămod-nā’ dāwid ləppānay kî-māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênāy

35 Unlike in the other forty occurrences of the construction, Esth 8:5 has “before Y’s face” instead of “in Y’s eyes.” This instance was included in the present paper’s dataset (see Appendix II) since it contains the essential elements of ‘favour’ and ‘eyes’ and conveys the basic meaning of [X ffi Y]. 36 The cultural domains Cultus was not used in the analysis of ’hb and the other five concepts since none of the uses of them clearly occurred in this domain. In general, favour events may involve more than one category, and therefore the specific cultural domain was determined by the dominant context of the event. Two cases, kin-ship/politics divinity/social relations, are combinations of two categories.


Chapter 8 ׀ 154

‘Let David stand before me, as he finds favour in my eyes.’ (1 Sam 16:22) The speaker in (4) is King Saul who, impressed by David’s appearance, expresses an intention to employ him as his arms-bearer. The specific sociocultural relation between Saul and David in this context is that between a ruler and a young shepherd. In the cultural domain of Kinship, X and Y may be father and son, first-born and younger brother, uncle and nephew, or father in-low and son in-law. In the cultural domain of Friendship, the social status of the parties is different (i.e., Jonathan, the king’s son, and David, the king’s soldier), but the personal amity is the essential element of the relationship between the two parties. Hence, the occurrences of [X ffi Y] in this context (e.g., 1 Sam 20:29) are not categorised as Politics. The category of Kinship/Politics consists of three occurrences of [X ffi Y], all in the book of Esther (Esth 5:8, 7:3, 8:5), where X is the book’s titular character, the queen of Persia, and Y her royal spouse, King Ahasuerus, who anointed her. Although the marriage between the two is not explicitly mentioned in these cases and Esther addresses Ahasuerus by his royal title, ‘the king’, rather than something more intimate (e.g., ‘my husband’), the fact that it was love or attraction that caused him to choose her from among all the other women (Esth 2:9) implies the existence of marital relations between the two. Also the fact that they are named king and queen implies that they were a husband and wife. The construction occurs only once in the domain of Divinity/Social Relations (see (5)), where Y refers to two different characters, God and man. (5) ûməṣā’-ḥēn wəśēkel-ṭôb bə‘ênê ’ĕlōhîm wə’ādām ‘And find favour and good mind/understanding in the eyes of God and man.’ (Prov 3:4) Finally, in the domain of Divinity, X is always a human character and Y is always the deity (referred to mostly as Yhwh and only once as ’elohim ‘God’). 8.3 Grammatical analysis and cultural origin 8.3.1 Syntactic relations and semantic roles The construction [X ffi Y] consists of the following four main constituents: ‘find’, X, ‘favour’, and ‘in Y’s eyes’, as Table 8.2 shows. The transitive ‘find’ has two arguments, X and ‘favour’, to which it assigns the semantic roles of ‘agent’ and ‘theme’ respectively. The prepositional adjunct ‘in Y’s eyes’ consists of the preposition ‘in’ and the noun phrase ‘Y’s eyes’. The prep-osition assigns the semantic roles of figure and ground to ‘favour’ and to Y’s eyes respectively, thereby specifying the place in which the finding event occurs. Both X and Y can refer to a human individual, while Y can also refer to the deity. As noted in the introductory section, the construction’s schematic meaning (i.e., ‘Y favours X’) does not match the grammatical roles of the constituent parts specified above. The meaning implies the active role of Y as the entity that expresses favour, but Y is referred to by the metonymy ‘Y’s eyes’ and not directly. A grammatical role is assigned to ‘Y’s eyes’ rather than

to Y, which does not have an overt role. At the same time, the meaning ‘Y favours X’ does not assign any grammatical role to ‘Y’s eyes’, but rather clearly indicates such a role for Y as the entity that experiences favour. The mismatch, summarised in Table 8.3, continues with X (the subject of ‘find’), which in fact receives favour from Y.

Constituent Syntactic role Semantic role Animacy ‘find’ transitive verb with

two arguments

assigns two semantic roles (to X and to fa-

vour)

attributed to humans

X subject agent human favour direct object theme inanimate

‘in Y’s eyes’

- ‘in’

- Y’s eyes

- Y

- eyes

prepositional adjunct

preposition, head of prepositional adjunct

specifies location

NP in PP-adjunct location

inanimate

N possessor

divine/human

N (head NP) possession inanimate

Table 8.2: Constituent parts of [X ffi Y] with their grammatical relations and roles (N = noun, NP = noun phrase, PP = prepositional phrase)

Constituent Syntactic role Semantic role Animacy

X direct object theme human Y subject experiencer human/deity

favour transitive verb assigns two semantic roles (to X and to Y)

attributed to humans/deity

Table 8.3: Grammatical roles in ‘Y favours X’ The transitive verb ‘find’ is absent from this array; X, the subject and agent, has the roles of direct object and theme; and Y, part of the prepositional adjunct, appears to be the subject and the experiencer. Y is also the only element of the prepositional adjunct that has a role in the meaning. Finally, ‘favour’ is a transitive predicate. This grammatical examination clearly indicates that the meaning of [X ffi Y] is not compo-sitional. Rather, the construction conveys a fixed meaning, which emerged through its peculiar, idiomatic combination of syntactic and semantic elements. As will be elaborated in the follow-ing section, the figurative essence of the composition in question originates from the ancient Near Eastern cultural conception of ‘favour’.



‘Let David stand before me, as he finds favour in my eyes.’ (1 Sam 16:22) The speaker in (4) is King Saul who, impressed by David’s appearance, expresses an intention to employ him as his arms-bearer. The specific sociocultural relation between Saul and David in this context is that between a ruler and a young shepherd. In the cultural domain of Kinship, X and Y may be father and son, first-born and younger brother, uncle and nephew, or father in-low and son in-law. In the cultural domain of Friendship, the social status of the parties is different (i.e., Jonathan, the king’s son, and David, the king’s soldier), but the personal amity is the essential element of the relationship between the two parties. Hence, the occurrences of [X ffi Y] in this context (e.g., 1 Sam 20:29) are not categorised as Politics. The category of Kinship/Politics consists of three occurrences of [X ffi Y], all in the book of Esther (Esth 5:8, 7:3, 8:5), where X is the book’s titular character, the queen of Persia, and Y her royal spouse, King Ahasuerus, who anointed her. Although the marriage between the two is not explicitly mentioned in these cases and Esther addresses Ahasuerus by his royal title, ‘the king’, rather than something more intimate (e.g., ‘my husband’), the fact that it was love or attraction that caused him to choose her from among all the other women (Esth 2:9) implies the existence of marital relations between the two. Also the fact that they are named king and queen implies that they were a husband and wife. The construction occurs only once in the domain of Divinity/Social Relations (see (5)), where Y refers to two different characters, God and man. (5) ûməṣā’-ḥēn wəśēkel-ṭôb bə‘ênê ’ĕlōhîm wə’ādām ‘And find favour and good mind/understanding in the eyes of God and man.’ (Prov 3:4) Finally, in the domain of Divinity, X is always a human character and Y is always the deity (referred to mostly as Yhwh and only once as ’elohim ‘God’). 8.3 Grammatical analysis and cultural origin 8.3.1 Syntactic relations and semantic roles The construction [X ffi Y] consists of the following four main constituents: ‘find’, X, ‘favour’, and ‘in Y’s eyes’, as Table 8.2 shows. The transitive ‘find’ has two arguments, X and ‘favour’, to which it assigns the semantic roles of ‘agent’ and ‘theme’ respectively. The prepositional adjunct ‘in Y’s eyes’ consists of the preposition ‘in’ and the noun phrase ‘Y’s eyes’. The prep-osition assigns the semantic roles of figure and ground to ‘favour’ and to Y’s eyes respectively, thereby specifying the place in which the finding event occurs. Both X and Y can refer to a human individual, while Y can also refer to the deity. As noted in the introductory section, the construction’s schematic meaning (i.e., ‘Y favours X’) does not match the grammatical roles of the constituent parts specified above. The meaning implies the active role of Y as the entity that expresses favour, but Y is referred to by the metonymy ‘Y’s eyes’ and not directly. A grammatical role is assigned to ‘Y’s eyes’ rather than

to Y, which does not have an overt role. At the same time, the meaning ‘Y favours X’ does not assign any grammatical role to ‘Y’s eyes’, but rather clearly indicates such a role for Y as the entity that experiences favour. The mismatch, summarised in Table 8.3, continues with X (the subject of ‘find’), which in fact receives favour from Y.

Constituent Syntactic role Semantic role Animacy ‘find’ transitive verb with

two arguments

assigns two semantic roles (to X and to fa-

vour)

attributed to humans

X subject agent human favour direct object theme inanimate

‘in Y’s eyes’

- ‘in’

- Y’s eyes

- Y

- eyes

prepositional adjunct

preposition, head of prepositional adjunct

specifies location

NP in PP-adjunct location

inanimate

N possessor

divine/human

N (head NP) possession inanimate

Table 8.2: Constituent parts of [X ffi Y] with their grammatical relations and roles (N = noun, NP = noun phrase, PP = prepositional phrase)

Constituent Syntactic role Semantic role Animacy

X direct object theme human Y subject experiencer human/deity

favour transitive verb assigns two semantic roles (to X and to Y)

attributed to humans/deity

Table 8.3: Grammatical roles in ‘Y favours X’ The transitive verb ‘find’ is absent from this array; X, the subject and agent, has the roles of direct object and theme; and Y, part of the prepositional adjunct, appears to be the subject and the experiencer. Y is also the only element of the prepositional adjunct that has a role in the meaning. Finally, ‘favour’ is a transitive predicate. This grammatical examination clearly indicates that the meaning of [X ffi Y] is not compo-sitional. Rather, the construction conveys a fixed meaning, which emerged through its peculiar, idiomatic combination of syntactic and semantic elements. As will be elaborated in the follow-ing section, the figurative essence of the composition in question originates from the ancient Near Eastern cultural conception of ‘favour’.


Chapter 8 ׀ 156

8.3.2 Cultural origin The analysis in the previous section implied the central role of the eyes, as the locus of ḥēn, in the conceptualisation of favour in the [X ffi Y] construction. This relation between eyes and ḥen occurs in other constructions as well, where the latter is not ‘found’ but rather ‘cast’, ‘placed’, ‘given’, ‘carried’, or ‘raised’, as is the case, for example, in (6): (6) wayāhwəh nātan ’et-ḥēn hā‘ām bə‘ênê miṣrayim

‘And Yhwh had put/placed the favour of the people in the eyes of the Egyptians.’ (Exod 12:36)

The word ḥēn occurs 70 times in BH of which 59% (41 times) are within the [X ffi Y] con-struction. About 69% of all the occurrences of ḥēn in BH are related to human or divine eyes. Apart from those, the term is associated with three other body parts: three times with lips, twice with head, and once with neck. In addition, ḥēn occurs once with desert, the only seat of favour unrelated to the human body.37 In the remainder of the occurrences, ḥēn denotes a positive, usually human attribute unrelated to a specific locus. The use of ḥēn in [X ffi Y] implies the existence of the underlying conception of ḥēn as something desirable in the eyes of the other. In terms of conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson 1980), the following conceptual metaphors possibly underlie the use of the con-struction: FAVOUR IS A DESIRABLE GOOD and EYES ARE THE LOCUS OF FAVOUR. The two cognitively enable the emergence of [X ffi Y] where perceiving favour in Y’s eyes is de-sirable, as it may lead to Y rewarding X or otherwise acting positively toward him/her. This conceptualisation of favour as a desirable good in Y’s eyes leading to a reward for X reflects a broader ancient Near Eastern cultural conception, indicated also by the above-men-tioned predominant association of ḥēn with eyes. Weinfeld (1982) noted that the concept of gods rewarding humans is found in Phoenician texts from the fifth–fourth and second–first centuries B.C.E. Blessings for similar rewards appear already in Egyptian writings from around the eleventh century B.C.E., where gods plant favour before the eyes of another deity, a chief, or ordinary humans, much as Yhwh does in example (6) above. As Weinfeld noted, Egyptian contexts, like that of the favour event in (6), are common in biblical narratives. For the Phoenicians, favour was seated in the eyes whereas ancient Egyptians placed it ‘be-fore the face’, that is, ‘in front of’ or ‘in the sight of’. The Hebrew Bible knows both loci and even alternates them, as in (7): (7) wə’im-māṣā’tî ḥēn ləpānāyw wəkašēr haddābār lipnê hammelek wəṭôbâ ’ănî

bə‘ênāyw ‘And if I have found favour before his face and he approves and I am good in his eyes.’ (Esth 8:5)

37 ‘The nation of sword-survivors found favour in the desert.’ (Jer 31:2) The verse indicates that ḥēn is not nec-essarily expressed by God or humans, but can also be experienced in a particular place or situation.

Weinfeld does not attribute much importance to the difference in meaning between ‘in the eyes’ and ‘before the eyes’, adding that the Akkadian symbol IGI denotes both eye and face. He concluded that the divergent sources and the alternation of ‘in’ and ‘before’ with regard to the location of favour indicate the existence of regional variations in the ancient concept of ḥēn as associated with the eyes of deities or humans. The reflection of this concept in Biblical Hebrew, he asserted, was a result of Ramesside Egyptian influence, with Babylonian impact found in later texts and Jewish liturgy, which contain requests that God give the suppliant fa-vour and grace in the eyes of gods, kings, and so on. Some of the texts in question reveal that the favour one wishes for is reflected in the faces of the angels who are supposed to exert a positive influence on the earthly rulers (Weinfeld 1982: 96). Weinfeld’s diachronic examination showed that the spatial relation between ḥen and eyes in BH originally involved a hierarchical relationship between the suppliant and the giver of ḥen, in which the latter is of a higher sociocultural status than the former. Ancient Near Eastern texts thus reflect a cultural model of ḥēn, according to which: (a) ḥēn is planted by gods in or before the eyes of entities with a relatively high sociocultural status, and (b) entities with a relatively high sociocultural status bestow ḥen on humans of a relatively low sociocultural sta-tus. This cultural model corresponds to the social order of ancient Israel, where leaders in the pre-monarchic period (before 1000 B.C.E.) were chosen by God and, later, kings were anointed by God. The influence of God on leaders and kings continued throughout their rule (see Noll 2013). The distribution and the pragmatic functions of [X ffi Y] in BH described in the follow-ing section to a large extent reflect this cultural model. It is important to note, however, that eyes in BH are the locus not only of favour but also of other human emotions, attributes, and attitudes, such as anger, humiliation, righteousness, judgment, preference, or belief, as shown, for example, in (8). This point will be further elaborated in 8.5 below. (8) bayyāmîm hāhēm ’ên melek bəyiśrā’ēl ’îš hayyāšār bə‘ênāyw ya‘ăśeh

‘In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his eyes.’ (Judg 17:6)

Regardless of social hierarchy, the conceptual association between eyes and emotions, cogni-tion and other human traits occurs in other languages in the region may be echoing something of the ancient conception. Sharifian (2011) shows that the Persian cheshm ‘eye’ is conceptual-ised as the locus of ‘love’ and ‘envy’ and is associated with other types of experience. In Ara-bic, for example, ‘ayuni ‘my eyes’ (used also in Israeli Hebrew) expresses endearment, and in Tigrinya ‘aini ‘my eyes’ is suffixed to names of beloved and endeared ones. 8.4 Pragmatic motivation 8.4.1 Sociocultural identity of X and Y An examination of the sociocultural identities of X and Y in the different occurrences of [X ffi Y] in the Hebrew Bible reveals a variety of identities and types of relationships. When Y is the deity, X is most often a king, leader, judge; in two cases, X is a person without a specific status.



8.3.2 Cultural origin The analysis in the previous section implied the central role of the eyes, as the locus of ḥēn, in the conceptualisation of favour in the [X ffi Y] construction. This relation between eyes and ḥen occurs in other constructions as well, where the latter is not ‘found’ but rather ‘cast’, ‘placed’, ‘given’, ‘carried’, or ‘raised’, as is the case, for example, in (6): (6) wayāhwəh nātan ’et-ḥēn hā‘ām bə‘ênê miṣrayim

‘And Yhwh had put/placed the favour of the people in the eyes of the Egyptians.’ (Exod 12:36)

The word ḥēn occurs 70 times in BH of which 59% (41 times) are within the [X ffi Y] con-struction. About 69% of all the occurrences of ḥēn in BH are related to human or divine eyes. Apart from those, the term is associated with three other body parts: three times with lips, twice with head, and once with neck. In addition, ḥēn occurs once with desert, the only seat of favour unrelated to the human body.37 In the remainder of the occurrences, ḥēn denotes a positive, usually human attribute unrelated to a specific locus. The use of ḥēn in [X ffi Y] implies the existence of the underlying conception of ḥēn as something desirable in the eyes of the other. In terms of conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson 1980), the following conceptual metaphors possibly underlie the use of the con-struction: FAVOUR IS A DESIRABLE GOOD and EYES ARE THE LOCUS OF FAVOUR. The two cognitively enable the emergence of [X ffi Y] where perceiving favour in Y’s eyes is de-sirable, as it may lead to Y rewarding X or otherwise acting positively toward him/her. This conceptualisation of favour as a desirable good in Y’s eyes leading to a reward for X reflects a broader ancient Near Eastern cultural conception, indicated also by the above-men-tioned predominant association of ḥēn with eyes. Weinfeld (1982) noted that the concept of gods rewarding humans is found in Phoenician texts from the fifth–fourth and second–first centuries B.C.E. Blessings for similar rewards appear already in Egyptian writings from around the eleventh century B.C.E., where gods plant favour before the eyes of another deity, a chief, or ordinary humans, much as Yhwh does in example (6) above. As Weinfeld noted, Egyptian contexts, like that of the favour event in (6), are common in biblical narratives. For the Phoenicians, favour was seated in the eyes whereas ancient Egyptians placed it ‘be-fore the face’, that is, ‘in front of’ or ‘in the sight of’. The Hebrew Bible knows both loci and even alternates them, as in (7): (7) wə’im-māṣā’tî ḥēn ləpānāyw wəkašēr haddābār lipnê hammelek wəṭôbâ ’ănî

bə‘ênāyw ‘And if I have found favour before his face and he approves and I am good in his eyes.’ (Esth 8:5)

37 ‘The nation of sword-survivors found favour in the desert.’ (Jer 31:2) The verse indicates that ḥēn is not nec-essarily expressed by God or humans, but can also be experienced in a particular place or situation.

Weinfeld does not attribute much importance to the difference in meaning between ‘in the eyes’ and ‘before the eyes’, adding that the Akkadian symbol IGI denotes both eye and face. He concluded that the divergent sources and the alternation of ‘in’ and ‘before’ with regard to the location of favour indicate the existence of regional variations in the ancient concept of ḥēn as associated with the eyes of deities or humans. The reflection of this concept in Biblical Hebrew, he asserted, was a result of Ramesside Egyptian influence, with Babylonian impact found in later texts and Jewish liturgy, which contain requests that God give the suppliant fa-vour and grace in the eyes of gods, kings, and so on. Some of the texts in question reveal that the favour one wishes for is reflected in the faces of the angels who are supposed to exert a positive influence on the earthly rulers (Weinfeld 1982: 96). Weinfeld’s diachronic examination showed that the spatial relation between ḥen and eyes in BH originally involved a hierarchical relationship between the suppliant and the giver of ḥen, in which the latter is of a higher sociocultural status than the former. Ancient Near Eastern texts thus reflect a cultural model of ḥēn, according to which: (a) ḥēn is planted by gods in or before the eyes of entities with a relatively high sociocultural status, and (b) entities with a relatively high sociocultural status bestow ḥen on humans of a relatively low sociocultural sta-tus. This cultural model corresponds to the social order of ancient Israel, where leaders in the pre-monarchic period (before 1000 B.C.E.) were chosen by God and, later, kings were anointed by God. The influence of God on leaders and kings continued throughout their rule (see Noll 2013). The distribution and the pragmatic functions of [X ffi Y] in BH described in the follow-ing section to a large extent reflect this cultural model. It is important to note, however, that eyes in BH are the locus not only of favour but also of other human emotions, attributes, and attitudes, such as anger, humiliation, righteousness, judgment, preference, or belief, as shown, for example, in (8). This point will be further elaborated in 8.5 below. (8) bayyāmîm hāhēm ’ên melek bəyiśrā’ēl ’îš hayyāšār bə‘ênāyw ya‘ăśeh

‘In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his eyes.’ (Judg 17:6)

Regardless of social hierarchy, the conceptual association between eyes and emotions, cogni-tion and other human traits occurs in other languages in the region may be echoing something of the ancient conception. Sharifian (2011) shows that the Persian cheshm ‘eye’ is conceptual-ised as the locus of ‘love’ and ‘envy’ and is associated with other types of experience. In Ara-bic, for example, ‘ayuni ‘my eyes’ (used also in Israeli Hebrew) expresses endearment, and in Tigrinya ‘aini ‘my eyes’ is suffixed to names of beloved and endeared ones. 8.4 Pragmatic motivation 8.4.1 Sociocultural identity of X and Y An examination of the sociocultural identities of X and Y in the different occurrences of [X ffi Y] in the Hebrew Bible reveals a variety of identities and types of relationships. When Y is the deity, X is most often a king, leader, judge; in two cases, X is a person without a specific status.


Chapter 8 ׀ 158

When Y is a human, X may be a brother, a chief, a father, a wife, or a foreign woman. Table 8.4 presents the sociocultural identities of X and Y in all the occurrences of the discussed con-struction. As Table 8.4 clearly shows, in thirty-eight of the forty-one occurrences (90%) the sociocul-tural status of X is lower than that of Y; the relationship between them is consequently hierar-chical. The use of [X ffi Y] is indicative of this pattern, whose most prominent instance is the relationship between humans and Yhwh (or Yhwh’s messengers) in thirteen of the total occur-rences (32%). This tendency in the distribution of the construction clearly reflects the ancient Near Eastern cultural conception of favour discussed in 3.2 above.

Identity X Identity Y Freq. Identity X Identity Y Freq. chief king 1 king Yhwh 1 commander farmer 1 king’s deputy king’s men 1 commander foreign king 1 leader Yhwh 8 commander son of king 2 people of Israel king 1 father son 1 people of Israel Leader 1 father in-law/uncle son in-law/cousin 1 queen king 3 foreign woman harvester 1 twin brother firstborn twin brother 4 foreign woman landlord 2 servant chief 1 human without spe-cific identity

deity 1 servant king 1

human without spe-cific identity

king 1 shepherd king 1


Yhwh 2 son of landlord settlers on landlord’s land

1


Yhwh’s messenger 1 wife husband 1

judge Yhwh 1 woman priest 1 Table 8.4: Sociocultural identity of X and Y (ordered alphabetically)

In four of the cases where both X and Y are humans (italics in Table 8.4), the hierarchical relationship is inverted, that is, the sociocultural status of X is higher than that of Y. These cases involve (1) father and son, (2) father-in-law/uncle and son in-law/nephew, (3) the deputy of a foreign king and the foreign king’s men, and (4) the son of a local ruler and sojourners in his father’s land. In these ḥen-events, X is dependent on Y’s willingness or ability to do some-thing despite the actual status difference between the two, as in (9): (9) ’emṣā’-ḥēn bə‘ênêkem wa’ăšer tō’mrû ’ēlay ’ettēn ‘I shall find favour in your eyes, and I will give you whatever you ask.’ (Gen 34:11) The speaker in (9), Shechem, the son of the local ruler, is asking Jacob’s sons, temporary resi-dents in his father’s land, for permission to marry Jacob’s daughter, Dinah. Although his social status is higher than theirs, he is dependent on the permission of Dinah’s father and brothers for the fulfilment of his wish. This situation temporarily gives them a higher status in relation

to him. With his request, Shechem expresses his willingness to diminish himself with respect to them and to accept their conditions. The use of [X ffi Y] in (9) and similar cases stems from a temporary, situational relationship and not from long-term or permanent differences in the sociocultural status of the involved parties as is the case for the majority of the construction’s occurrences. Hence, the four diver-gent instances also reflect the ancient Near Eastern cultural concept of ḥēn. Apparently, [X ffi Y] is specifically employed where hierarchical relationships between the parties are of partic-ular importance and should therefore be emphasised. In other words, the experience of ḥēn is not equally distributed, but rather driven by hierarchy. Y, who experiences ḥēn, always has a higher status than X, either socioculturally or situationally. This hierarchical relationship of dependency motivates the use of the construction, which originally expresses such relationship, in suitable contexts. Such hierarchical relations are prominent in the Hebrew Bible, with that between the deity and humans as the archetype. The patriarchal society dictates hierarchies between men and women, fathers and children, and greater and lesser members of a kinship group. Similar to the use of ’hb, the hierarchical distribution of the [X ffi Y] construction also suggests that emotions from the category of affection are involved in the ancient Israelite sociocultural order as re-flected in the Hebrew Bible. This further corresponds to studies on other emotions in BH as well as to studies on emotions in other languages, as was discussed in Chapter 6. A specifica-tion of the pragmatic function of [X ffi Y] in the texts is presented in the following section. 8.4.2 Pragmatic function The pragmatic functions of [X ffi Y] are presented in Table 8.5.

Pragmatic function Type Frequency % request speech act [politeness] 20 49 wish speech act [politeness] 3 7 new information coherence 3 7 reason coherence 3 7 gratitude speech act [politeness] 2 5 acknowledgment speech act [politeness] 1 2.5 affirmation speech act 1 2.5 commandment speech act 1 2.5 condition coherence 1 2.5 courtesy speech act [politeness] 1 2.5 intention speech act 1 2.5 interrogation speech act 1 2.5 modesty speech act [politeness] 1 2.5 proof speech act 1 2.5 reproof speech act 1 2.5

Table 8.5: Pragmatic functions of [X ffi Y]: Count and relative frequency (ordered by frequency)



When Y is a human, X may be a brother, a chief, a father, a wife, or a foreign woman. Table 8.4 presents the sociocultural identities of X and Y in all the occurrences of the discussed con-struction. As Table 8.4 clearly shows, in thirty-eight of the forty-one occurrences (90%) the sociocul-tural status of X is lower than that of Y; the relationship between them is consequently hierar-chical. The use of [X ffi Y] is indicative of this pattern, whose most prominent instance is the relationship between humans and Yhwh (or Yhwh’s messengers) in thirteen of the total occur-rences (32%). This tendency in the distribution of the construction clearly reflects the ancient Near Eastern cultural conception of favour discussed in 3.2 above.

Identity X Identity Y Freq. Identity X Identity Y Freq. chief king 1 king Yhwh 1 commander farmer 1 king’s deputy king’s men 1 commander foreign king 1 leader Yhwh 8 commander son of king 2 people of Israel king 1 father son 1 people of Israel Leader 1 father in-law/uncle son in-law/cousin 1 queen king 3 foreign woman harvester 1 twin brother firstborn twin brother 4 foreign woman landlord 2 servant chief 1 human without spe-cific identity

deity 1 servant king 1


king 1 shepherd king 1


Yhwh 2 son of landlord settlers on landlord’s land

1


Yhwh’s messenger 1 wife husband 1

judge Yhwh 1 woman priest 1 Table 8.4: Sociocultural identity of X and Y (ordered alphabetically)

In four of the cases where both X and Y are humans (italics in Table 8.4), the hierarchical relationship is inverted, that is, the sociocultural status of X is higher than that of Y. These cases involve (1) father and son, (2) father-in-law/uncle and son in-law/nephew, (3) the deputy of a foreign king and the foreign king’s men, and (4) the son of a local ruler and sojourners in his father’s land. In these ḥen-events, X is dependent on Y’s willingness or ability to do some-thing despite the actual status difference between the two, as in (9): (9) ’emṣā’-ḥēn bə‘ênêkem wa’ăšer tō’mrû ’ēlay ’ettēn ‘I shall find favour in your eyes, and I will give you whatever you ask.’ (Gen 34:11) The speaker in (9), Shechem, the son of the local ruler, is asking Jacob’s sons, temporary resi-dents in his father’s land, for permission to marry Jacob’s daughter, Dinah. Although his social status is higher than theirs, he is dependent on the permission of Dinah’s father and brothers for the fulfilment of his wish. This situation temporarily gives them a higher status in relation

to him. With his request, Shechem expresses his willingness to diminish himself with respect to them and to accept their conditions. The use of [X ffi Y] in (9) and similar cases stems from a temporary, situational relationship and not from long-term or permanent differences in the sociocultural status of the involved parties as is the case for the majority of the construction’s occurrences. Hence, the four diver-gent instances also reflect the ancient Near Eastern cultural concept of ḥēn. Apparently, [X ffi Y] is specifically employed where hierarchical relationships between the parties are of partic-ular importance and should therefore be emphasised. In other words, the experience of ḥēn is not equally distributed, but rather driven by hierarchy. Y, who experiences ḥēn, always has a higher status than X, either socioculturally or situationally. This hierarchical relationship of dependency motivates the use of the construction, which originally expresses such relationship, in suitable contexts. Such hierarchical relations are prominent in the Hebrew Bible, with that between the deity and humans as the archetype. The patriarchal society dictates hierarchies between men and women, fathers and children, and greater and lesser members of a kinship group. Similar to the use of ’hb, the hierarchical distribution of the [X ffi Y] construction also suggests that emotions from the category of affection are involved in the ancient Israelite sociocultural order as re-flected in the Hebrew Bible. This further corresponds to studies on other emotions in BH as well as to studies on emotions in other languages, as was discussed in Chapter 6. A specifica-tion of the pragmatic function of [X ffi Y] in the texts is presented in the following section. 8.4.2 Pragmatic function The pragmatic functions of [X ffi Y] are presented in Table 8.5.

Pragmatic function Type Frequency % request speech act [politeness] 20 49 wish speech act [politeness] 3 7 new information coherence 3 7 reason coherence 3 7 gratitude speech act [politeness] 2 5 acknowledgment speech act [politeness] 1 2.5 affirmation speech act 1 2.5 commandment speech act 1 2.5 condition coherence 1 2.5 courtesy speech act [politeness] 1 2.5 intention speech act 1 2.5 interrogation speech act 1 2.5 modesty speech act [politeness] 1 2.5 proof speech act 1 2.5 reproof speech act 1 2.5

Table 8.5: Pragmatic functions of [X ffi Y]: Count and relative frequency (ordered by frequency)


Chapter 8 ׀ 160

Table 8.5 shows that in 83% of the construction’s occurrences, it is a part of a ‘speech act’, while in the remaining 17% it plays a role in the text’s coherence. Examples of the first category are ‘request’, ‘wish’, and ‘interrogation’, as in (10). Examples of coherence are ‘reason’ or ‘contrast’, as in (1), which is reproduced below as (11). (10) ’im-nā’ māṣā’tî ḥēn bə‘ênêkā wəlāqaḥtā minḥātî miyyādî

‘Please, if I found favour in your eyes, please take my gift from my hand.’ (Gen 33:10) (11) wənōaḥ māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênê yāhwəh

‘But Noah found favour in the eyes of Yhwh.’ (Gen 6:8) The most common pragmatic function of [X ffi Y] is request. This is consistent with the hier-archy characterising the relationship between X and Y as described in 4.1 above and reflects the ancient Israelite cultural conception of favour as a desirable reward bestowed by the deity or an individual of relatively high status. 8.4.3 Summary The discussion above makes it clear that the distribution of [X ffi Y] among the various cultural domains and contexts of interaction in addition to the sociocultural identities of X and Y are rooted in an ancient Near Eastern cultural conceptualisation of favour. According to this con-ceptualisation, favour is seated in the eyes of deities and humans of relatively high social status to the benefit of humans of relatively low social status. The hierarchical element inherent in this pattern made it possible to extend the use of the construction to an assortment of sociocul-tural hierarchies (husband-wife, king-servant, etc.) as well as to temporary, contextual situa-tions of dependency. Its meaning in BH is strongly associated with reward for a positive deed on the basis of a conditional relationship. The expression of favour through the use of this construction is often relatively indirect and pragmatically functions as a form of politeness. The following section explains the entrenchment of the ancient Near Eastern cultural concep-tion of favour from the cognitive linguistic perspective. 8.5 Embodiment of ḥēn ‘favour’ The cultural origin of [X ffi Y] is attributable to underlying cognitive mechanisms, which are reflected in the language as well. The focus on eyes as the seat of favour suggests an association between the experience of favour and facial expression; in other words, when Y has favour for X, his face, and especially his eyes, can be expected to reflect it. At the same time, finding favour in Y’s eyes implies its sensory, visual perception by X. The connections between emo-tions on the one hand and body parts and physical experience on the other were discussed in Chapter 2. Studies on emotions in BH also concern this topic (see Chapter 3). For example, previous studies have demonstrated that anger is associated in BH with heat/fire, overflow, and redness of facial parts (see Kruger 2000; van Wolde 2008; Schlimm 2008), fear with bodily

reactions (see Kroeze 2004), depression with inner organs and the eyes (Mumford 1992) and body posture (King 2010), and affection with the physical states of clinging or being bound to its object (Bosman 2011). In (12), for example, the attachment to God is metaphorically ex-pressed as physical thirst: (12) ṣām’â napšî lē’lōhîm ‘My soul thirsts for God.’ (Ps 42:3) The cognitive mechanism of embodiment drives expressions of this kind (see Chapter 2). Sev-eral publications emphasised, in addition, the role of affective or emotional knowledge in the understanding of abstract meaning; in particular, Vigliocco et al. (2009) concluded that the area of the brain activated by the processing of non-verbal reflections of emotion, such as facial expression, responds in the same way to the processing of the emotive valence of words (see also Foolen 2012 on the relevance of emotion to language and linguistics). Ekman et al. (1972) established a set of six basic emotion-related facial expressions—happiness, surprise, sadness, fear, anger, and disgust/contempt—which, according to them, are universal and have evolu-tionary adaptive functions, such as the avoidance of danger. Their detailed description of the facial muscles involved in each expression and their movement has been used as a basis for different cross-cultural studies of emotions and their non-verbal communicative role. More recently, Sauter et al. (2011) found similarity in the categorical recognition of the facial ex-pressions of anger and disgust between the speakers of German and Yucatec Maya, despite the fact that the former language distinguishes between the two concepts and the latter uses the same term for both. These results suggest cross-cultural similarity in the perception of emo-tions, regardless of language. In the case of [X ffi Y], the physical experience associated with favour, namely the facial expression reflecting favour (especially noticeable in and around the eyes), is embodied in its linguistic expression. This expression conveys the perspectives of both Y, who experiences favour, and X, the recipient, who perceives it visually. The expression of the eyes thus seems to be embodied in [X ffi Y] and may motivate the conception EYES ARE THE LOCUS OF ḥen mentioned above. As for the other conception, ḥēn IS DESIRABLE OBJECT, the same mecha-nism of embodiment could provide the motivation for it as well, only this time it is visual perception that is embodied in ‘find’ and thus the emphasis is on the perspective of X, who perceives favour. Embodiment, it seems, not only underlies the linguistic expression of favour in [X ffi Y], but may also constitute the basis of its ancient perception as seated in the eyes. If so, the construction in question reflects both this cultural model and the mechanism of embod-iment operative in it. 8.6 Conclusion The linguistic, cultural, and cognitive examination of [X ffi Y] in the present study has yielded a complex picture of its emergence and use in BH. The construction’s figurative character is expressed by a syntactic-semantic mismatch, which in turn reflects the ancient Israelite cultural model of favour as related to the eyes. This model is extended to serve pragmatic needs, namely



Table 8.5 shows that in 83% of the construction’s occurrences, it is a part of a ‘speech act’, while in the remaining 17% it plays a role in the text’s coherence. Examples of the first category are ‘request’, ‘wish’, and ‘interrogation’, as in (10). Examples of coherence are ‘reason’ or ‘contrast’, as in (1), which is reproduced below as (11). (10) ’im-nā’ māṣā’tî ḥēn bə‘ênêkā wəlāqaḥtā minḥātî miyyādî

‘Please, if I found favour in your eyes, please take my gift from my hand.’ (Gen 33:10) (11) wənōaḥ māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênê yāhwəh

‘But Noah found favour in the eyes of Yhwh.’ (Gen 6:8) The most common pragmatic function of [X ffi Y] is request. This is consistent with the hier-archy characterising the relationship between X and Y as described in 4.1 above and reflects the ancient Israelite cultural conception of favour as a desirable reward bestowed by the deity or an individual of relatively high status. 8.4.3 Summary The discussion above makes it clear that the distribution of [X ffi Y] among the various cultural domains and contexts of interaction in addition to the sociocultural identities of X and Y are rooted in an ancient Near Eastern cultural conceptualisation of favour. According to this con-ceptualisation, favour is seated in the eyes of deities and humans of relatively high social status to the benefit of humans of relatively low social status. The hierarchical element inherent in this pattern made it possible to extend the use of the construction to an assortment of sociocul-tural hierarchies (husband-wife, king-servant, etc.) as well as to temporary, contextual situa-tions of dependency. Its meaning in BH is strongly associated with reward for a positive deed on the basis of a conditional relationship. The expression of favour through the use of this construction is often relatively indirect and pragmatically functions as a form of politeness. The following section explains the entrenchment of the ancient Near Eastern cultural concep-tion of favour from the cognitive linguistic perspective. 8.5 Embodiment of ḥēn ‘favour’ The cultural origin of [X ffi Y] is attributable to underlying cognitive mechanisms, which are reflected in the language as well. The focus on eyes as the seat of favour suggests an association between the experience of favour and facial expression; in other words, when Y has favour for X, his face, and especially his eyes, can be expected to reflect it. At the same time, finding favour in Y’s eyes implies its sensory, visual perception by X. The connections between emo-tions on the one hand and body parts and physical experience on the other were discussed in Chapter 2. Studies on emotions in BH also concern this topic (see Chapter 3). For example, previous studies have demonstrated that anger is associated in BH with heat/fire, overflow, and redness of facial parts (see Kruger 2000; van Wolde 2008; Schlimm 2008), fear with bodily

reactions (see Kroeze 2004), depression with inner organs and the eyes (Mumford 1992) and body posture (King 2010), and affection with the physical states of clinging or being bound to its object (Bosman 2011). In (12), for example, the attachment to God is metaphorically ex-pressed as physical thirst: (12) ṣām’â napšî lē’lōhîm ‘My soul thirsts for God.’ (Ps 42:3) The cognitive mechanism of embodiment drives expressions of this kind (see Chapter 2). Sev-eral publications emphasised, in addition, the role of affective or emotional knowledge in the understanding of abstract meaning; in particular, Vigliocco et al. (2009) concluded that the area of the brain activated by the processing of non-verbal reflections of emotion, such as facial expression, responds in the same way to the processing of the emotive valence of words (see also Foolen 2012 on the relevance of emotion to language and linguistics). Ekman et al. (1972) established a set of six basic emotion-related facial expressions—happiness, surprise, sadness, fear, anger, and disgust/contempt—which, according to them, are universal and have evolu-tionary adaptive functions, such as the avoidance of danger. Their detailed description of the facial muscles involved in each expression and their movement has been used as a basis for different cross-cultural studies of emotions and their non-verbal communicative role. More recently, Sauter et al. (2011) found similarity in the categorical recognition of the facial ex-pressions of anger and disgust between the speakers of German and Yucatec Maya, despite the fact that the former language distinguishes between the two concepts and the latter uses the same term for both. These results suggest cross-cultural similarity in the perception of emo-tions, regardless of language. In the case of [X ffi Y], the physical experience associated with favour, namely the facial expression reflecting favour (especially noticeable in and around the eyes), is embodied in its linguistic expression. This expression conveys the perspectives of both Y, who experiences favour, and X, the recipient, who perceives it visually. The expression of the eyes thus seems to be embodied in [X ffi Y] and may motivate the conception EYES ARE THE LOCUS OF ḥen mentioned above. As for the other conception, ḥēn IS DESIRABLE OBJECT, the same mecha-nism of embodiment could provide the motivation for it as well, only this time it is visual perception that is embodied in ‘find’ and thus the emphasis is on the perspective of X, who perceives favour. Embodiment, it seems, not only underlies the linguistic expression of favour in [X ffi Y], but may also constitute the basis of its ancient perception as seated in the eyes. If so, the construction in question reflects both this cultural model and the mechanism of embod-iment operative in it. 8.6 Conclusion The linguistic, cultural, and cognitive examination of [X ffi Y] in the present study has yielded a complex picture of its emergence and use in BH. The construction’s figurative character is expressed by a syntactic-semantic mismatch, which in turn reflects the ancient Israelite cultural model of favour as related to the eyes. This model is extended to serve pragmatic needs, namely


Chapter 8 ׀ 162

the emphasis on the (sociocultural) hierarchical relations between the participants of favour-events. The embodiment of facial expressions as a part of the experience of favour possibly underlies the emergence of both the cultural model and its linguistic expression. These findings clearly emphasise the importance of contextualisation and (cultural) conceptualisation for meaning and language use in BH. The distribution of [X ffi Y] reflects the social structures of the Hebrew Bible, where hier-archy (either sociocultural or contextual) is a central theme in the experience and expression of favour. The use of the construction [X ffi Y] in BH demonstrates another case of the syn-thesis between basic experience and sociocultural experience that exists in this language. Sim-ilar to the use of ’hb in BH, the use of this construction also indicates the important role that context plays in the meaning and conceptualisation as well as the coexistence of different as-pects of experience underlying language use. Like ’hb, [X ffi Y] is also used to convey partic-ular sociocultural norms and values of the ancient Israelite culture.

Chapter 9. Conclusions The aim of this thesis was to determine and specify the sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb in Biblical Hebrew (BH). Examining ’hb as a lexeme in this ancient language should first and foremost avoid any attempt to consider it as a straightforward verbal or written equivalent of ‘love’ and its translations to other (especially modern Western) languages. The use of ’hb to denote the most intimate, affectionate experiences rarely appears in the first-person form of the verb, which entails the distance between BH (a literary form) from the spoken language of ancient Israel. That is to say, the written form of BH is not a clear-cut reflection of usage patterns of the ancient spoken language. And yet, it is precisely such scarce occurrences that can reveal the underlying conceptions and conventions of usage beyond the scope of the written texts. The implication about the first-person use of ’hb in romantic relationships is illustrated in (1). (1) wattō’mer ’ēlāyw ’êk tō’mar ’ăhabtîk wəlibkā ’ên ’ittî ‘She said to him: “how can you say ‘I love you’ when your heart is not with me?”’ (Judg 16:15) The speaker, Delilah, expresses her doubts about Samson’s love for her, which she reports he had declared to her using the first-person form. This unique occurrence in the context of ro-mance implies the possibility in BH of the conventional use of ’hb (at least by men) to express affection, love, or attraction. Other occurrences of the first-person form denote very different senses of the verb in the contexts of food (Gen 27:4), master-slave relations (Exod 21:5), and divinity (e.g., Ps 119:47), particularly in the latter where ’hb is directed to inanimate matters or events that are connected to God such as his commandments and laws or attention. The present examination is a cognitive-linguistic study with a focus on the following two main aspects: (i) the cultural domains (i.e., prominent cultural themes) in which ’hb occurs, and (ii) the identity of the participants in love-events (i.e., gender, animacy, and social status). Most generally, the results of this study support the working hypothesis presented in Chapter 4, which attributes the prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb to its conceptual link with the soci-ocultural order of ancient Israel rather than to an inherent hierarchical meaning that the lexeme itself may bear. The hierarchical use of ’hb may (at least in part) reflect the overall hierarchical character of the biblical texts themselves, as seems to be the case in the use of other lexemes as well. The meaning of ’hb seems to be driven by the biblical contexts, which not only reflect the ancient Israelite sociocultural system, but also emphasise its most important values. The present thesis shows how the prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb in BH is driven by the soci-ocultural order of ancient Israel as this is reflected in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it shows that the use of this lexeme plays a role in this order and contributes to the entrenchment of significant values of the ancient Israelite culture. The occurrences of ’hb in interpersonal, inti-mate relationships, such as those in the domain of Kinship (i.e., the inherent meaning), and not in the other less intimate relationships, are often the departure point from which the most sig-nificant themes in the HB further develop. The existence of this interpersonal emotive experi-ence reveals the deep meaning and status of ’hb in ancient Israelite culture.


the emphasis on the (sociocultural) hierarchical relations between the participants of favour-events. The embodiment of facial expressions as a part of the experience of favour possibly underlies the emergence of both the cultural model and its linguistic expression. These findings clearly emphasise the importance of contextualisation and (cultural) conceptualisation for meaning and language use in BH. The distribution of [X ffi Y] reflects the social structures of the Hebrew Bible, where hier-archy (either sociocultural or contextual) is a central theme in the experience and expression of favour. The use of the construction [X ffi Y] in BH demonstrates another case of the syn-thesis between basic experience and sociocultural experience that exists in this language. Sim-ilar to the use of ’hb in BH, the use of this construction also indicates the important role that context plays in the meaning and conceptualisation as well as the coexistence of different as-pects of experience underlying language use. Like ’hb, [X ffi Y] is also used to convey partic-ular sociocultural norms and values of the ancient Israelite culture.

Chapter 9. Conclusions The aim of this thesis was to determine and specify the sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb in Biblical Hebrew (BH). Examining ’hb as a lexeme in this ancient language should first and foremost avoid any attempt to consider it as a straightforward verbal or written equivalent of ‘love’ and its translations to other (especially modern Western) languages. The use of ’hb to denote the most intimate, affectionate experiences rarely appears in the first-person form of the verb, which entails the distance between BH (a literary form) from the spoken language of ancient Israel. That is to say, the written form of BH is not a clear-cut reflection of usage patterns of the ancient spoken language. And yet, it is precisely such scarce occurrences that can reveal the underlying conceptions and conventions of usage beyond the scope of the written texts. The implication about the first-person use of ’hb in romantic relationships is illustrated in (1). (1) wattō’mer ’ēlāyw ’êk tō’mar ’ăhabtîk wəlibkā ’ên ’ittî ‘She said to him: “how can you say ‘I love you’ when your heart is not with me?”’ (Judg 16:15) The speaker, Delilah, expresses her doubts about Samson’s love for her, which she reports he had declared to her using the first-person form. This unique occurrence in the context of ro-mance implies the possibility in BH of the conventional use of ’hb (at least by men) to express affection, love, or attraction. Other occurrences of the first-person form denote very different senses of the verb in the contexts of food (Gen 27:4), master-slave relations (Exod 21:5), and divinity (e.g., Ps 119:47), particularly in the latter where ’hb is directed to inanimate matters or events that are connected to God such as his commandments and laws or attention. The present examination is a cognitive-linguistic study with a focus on the following two main aspects: (i) the cultural domains (i.e., prominent cultural themes) in which ’hb occurs, and (ii) the identity of the participants in love-events (i.e., gender, animacy, and social status). Most generally, the results of this study support the working hypothesis presented in Chapter 4, which attributes the prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb to its conceptual link with the soci-ocultural order of ancient Israel rather than to an inherent hierarchical meaning that the lexeme itself may bear. The hierarchical use of ’hb may (at least in part) reflect the overall hierarchical character of the biblical texts themselves, as seems to be the case in the use of other lexemes as well. The meaning of ’hb seems to be driven by the biblical contexts, which not only reflect the ancient Israelite sociocultural system, but also emphasise its most important values. The present thesis shows how the prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb in BH is driven by the soci-ocultural order of ancient Israel as this is reflected in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it shows that the use of this lexeme plays a role in this order and contributes to the entrenchment of significant values of the ancient Israelite culture. The occurrences of ’hb in interpersonal, inti-mate relationships, such as those in the domain of Kinship (i.e., the inherent meaning), and not in the other less intimate relationships, are often the departure point from which the most sig-nificant themes in the HB further develop. The existence of this interpersonal emotive experi-ence reveals the deep meaning and status of ’hb in ancient Israelite culture.


Chapter 9 ׀ 164

9.1 ’hb as a sociocultural model The main conclusion of the present study is that the use of ’hb reflects a complex cognitive-linguistic conception that is based on both universal (physical) as well as cultural experiential realities. In effect it demonstrates that two types of experience are interwoven in the conceptu-alisation of ’hb that are not easily distinguishable. Linguistically, ’hb has a rich semantic field that concerns all aspects of life in ancient Israelite culture, from the primary interpersonal to political-divine relationships, from basic to more complex social interactions and activities, and from mundane, concrete matters to ideological abstract ideas. The core emotive element of ’hb is present to varying degrees in all these aspects and layers. Textually, this rich semantic field, or polysemy, functions as a sociocultural model of ancient Israel, as this is reflected in the Hebrew Bible. This model consists of the two main sub-models introduced in Chapter 6: (i) Commitment and (ii) Evaluation. Each of the two encompasses a number of related aspects of the ancient sociocultural order and the related cultural domains in which ’hb occurs. The prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb is a conceptual extension of the hierarchical relationships of society; i.e., hierarchy is not a core element of ’hb, rather it is linked to it through social, hierarchical relations in which ’hb is involved, from intimate kinship to politics. The most fundamental primary elements of ’hb enable this extension or transfer. This is illustrated by Figure 9.1.

’hb in Biblical Hebrew

Figure 9.1: ’hb as a sociocultural model of ancient Israel (right) and its conceptual source (KIN = Kinship, ROM = Romance) As Figure 9.1 shows, the primary fundamental elements of ’hb, namely affection, physical proximity, attachment, attraction, and desire, and the cultural domains (i.e. Kinship and Ro-mance) from which they originate are the conceptual source of the sociocultural model and they play a role in both sub-models. The cultural domains provide the possible types of rela-tionship; the elements of ’hb (partialy shared by the two domainas) facilitate the transfer. The

Sociocultural model

Commitment model care,

protection, provision,

responsibility, mutual dependence

Evaluation model Idealisation/ disapproval

KIN

affection, physical

proximity, attachment

attraction, desire

ROM

arrows mark the transfer from the conceptual source to the broader sociocultural context in which ’hb is used. The use of ’hb seems to be part of a broader pattern in BH, according to which emotions play a role in the social order. The case of māṣā’ḥēn is another example of this pattern. The use of māṣā’ḥēn bə‘êynêy ‘be favoured by’ (lit. ‘find favour in one’s eyes’; see Chapter 8), clearly associates the affective use of ḥēn ‘favour’ (as used within the idiomatic construction [X ffi Y]) with social status and hierarchy. The one who favours (i.e., the one in whose eyes ḥen is found) always has a higher social status than the one who finds favour. Moreover, the former may be either God or a person with a higher social status, while the latter can only be a human being. In contrast to ’hb, ḥēn as an affective concept in BH is inherently associated with high status, such as that of kings. On the basis of this conception, the use of the construction is extended also to contextual or situational higher status, where Y does not necessarily have a higher social status than X, but may in that particular setting have the higher status, being the stronger one who is able to favour the other who is in need of favour in the current context. Although the use of both ’hb and ḥēn concern social hierarchy and status, in the latter this is inherent, while in the former it is entailed by the social relations it concerns. Another example concerns fear. The studies on fear discussed in Chapter 3 show that this emotion plays an important role in human-divine relationships; it is, in fact, fundamental to these relationships. The language of fear in the domain of Divinity stresses the significance of these relations through the social hierarchy-based use of lexemes (see, for example, Arnold 2011). Both the use of ’hb and of fear shape and model the cultural ideas of God and his rela-tionship with the people in the Hebrew Bible; the use of ’hb does this in regard to the entire sociocultural order. 9.2 The polysemy/semantic field of ’hb The most significant components in the polysemy of ’hb are the degrees of intimacy, volition, and transitivity. The extension of ’hb from the most basic intimate relationships to all other contexts is based on the conceptual associations between the two categories. From a sociocul-tural perspective, the semantic extension serves ideological aims, namely it imparts, assimi-lates, and entrenches ideal values. This is cognitively enabled by analogy of the following two kinds: (i) between the basic, primary social structure and the later, developed social structure, in particular the idea of God as a supreme kinship- and kingship-related sovereign (an idea which was also common in other West-Semitic ancient languages; see Cross 1998), and (ii) between interpersonal attraction/attachment and human attraction to inanimate objects. In bib-lical terms, the polysemy of ’hb in BH is purposeful, i.e., it serves the literary texts, but this is enabled by the underlying conceptions that create the right links between the source and its extensions. This finding supports Bosman’s (2011) radial network of ’hb.


Conclusions 165 ׀

9.1 ’hb as a sociocultural model The main conclusion of the present study is that the use of ’hb reflects a complex cognitive-linguistic conception that is based on both universal (physical) as well as cultural experiential realities. In effect it demonstrates that two types of experience are interwoven in the conceptu-alisation of ’hb that are not easily distinguishable. Linguistically, ’hb has a rich semantic field that concerns all aspects of life in ancient Israelite culture, from the primary interpersonal to political-divine relationships, from basic to more complex social interactions and activities, and from mundane, concrete matters to ideological abstract ideas. The core emotive element of ’hb is present to varying degrees in all these aspects and layers. Textually, this rich semantic field, or polysemy, functions as a sociocultural model of ancient Israel, as this is reflected in the Hebrew Bible. This model consists of the two main sub-models introduced in Chapter 6: (i) Commitment and (ii) Evaluation. Each of the two encompasses a number of related aspects of the ancient sociocultural order and the related cultural domains in which ’hb occurs. The prototypical hierarchical use of ’hb is a conceptual extension of the hierarchical relationships of society; i.e., hierarchy is not a core element of ’hb, rather it is linked to it through social, hierarchical relations in which ’hb is involved, from intimate kinship to politics. The most fundamental primary elements of ’hb enable this extension or transfer. This is illustrated by Figure 9.1.

’hb in Biblical Hebrew

Figure 9.1: ’hb as a sociocultural model of ancient Israel (right) and its conceptual source (KIN = Kinship, ROM = Romance) As Figure 9.1 shows, the primary fundamental elements of ’hb, namely affection, physical proximity, attachment, attraction, and desire, and the cultural domains (i.e. Kinship and Ro-mance) from which they originate are the conceptual source of the sociocultural model and they play a role in both sub-models. The cultural domains provide the possible types of rela-tionship; the elements of ’hb (partialy shared by the two domainas) facilitate the transfer. The

Sociocultural model

Commitment model care,

protection, provision,

responsibility, mutual dependence

Evaluation model Idealisation/ disapproval

KIN

affection, physical

proximity, attachment

attraction, desire

ROM

arrows mark the transfer from the conceptual source to the broader sociocultural context in which ’hb is used. The use of ’hb seems to be part of a broader pattern in BH, according to which emotions play a role in the social order. The case of māṣā’ḥēn is another example of this pattern. The use of māṣā’ḥēn bə‘êynêy ‘be favoured by’ (lit. ‘find favour in one’s eyes’; see Chapter 8), clearly associates the affective use of ḥēn ‘favour’ (as used within the idiomatic construction [X ffi Y]) with social status and hierarchy. The one who favours (i.e., the one in whose eyes ḥen is found) always has a higher social status than the one who finds favour. Moreover, the former may be either God or a person with a higher social status, while the latter can only be a human being. In contrast to ’hb, ḥēn as an affective concept in BH is inherently associated with high status, such as that of kings. On the basis of this conception, the use of the construction is extended also to contextual or situational higher status, where Y does not necessarily have a higher social status than X, but may in that particular setting have the higher status, being the stronger one who is able to favour the other who is in need of favour in the current context. Although the use of both ’hb and ḥēn concern social hierarchy and status, in the latter this is inherent, while in the former it is entailed by the social relations it concerns. Another example concerns fear. The studies on fear discussed in Chapter 3 show that this emotion plays an important role in human-divine relationships; it is, in fact, fundamental to these relationships. The language of fear in the domain of Divinity stresses the significance of these relations through the social hierarchy-based use of lexemes (see, for example, Arnold 2011). Both the use of ’hb and of fear shape and model the cultural ideas of God and his rela-tionship with the people in the Hebrew Bible; the use of ’hb does this in regard to the entire sociocultural order. 9.2 The polysemy/semantic field of ’hb The most significant components in the polysemy of ’hb are the degrees of intimacy, volition, and transitivity. The extension of ’hb from the most basic intimate relationships to all other contexts is based on the conceptual associations between the two categories. From a sociocul-tural perspective, the semantic extension serves ideological aims, namely it imparts, assimi-lates, and entrenches ideal values. This is cognitively enabled by analogy of the following two kinds: (i) between the basic, primary social structure and the later, developed social structure, in particular the idea of God as a supreme kinship- and kingship-related sovereign (an idea which was also common in other West-Semitic ancient languages; see Cross 1998), and (ii) between interpersonal attraction/attachment and human attraction to inanimate objects. In bib-lical terms, the polysemy of ’hb in BH is purposeful, i.e., it serves the literary texts, but this is enabled by the underlying conceptions that create the right links between the source and its extensions. This finding supports Bosman’s (2011) radial network of ’hb.


Chapter 9 ׀ 166

9.3 Transitivity as a cultural phenomenon Conceptual analogy and cognitive processes also underlie the transitivity of ’hb. Transitivity is a complex grammatical phenomenon that involves morphosyntactic and semantic factors. Semantic transitivity can be understood to be scalar or else in terms of its prototypicality, in the present study based on Næss’s (2007) hypothesis of maximally semantically distinct par-ticipants, namely: an unaffected volitional, instigating agent and an affected non-volitional and non-instigating patient. The non-prototypical, but present transitivity of ’hb shows that seman-tic transitivity is not merely a grammatical category/phenomenon, but is also culture-related. The culture-dependent conceptualisation of ’hb is also the underlying motivation of the transi-tivity of this lexeme. Put differently, the specific use of ’hb and its tight relation to the soci-ocultural order of ancient Israel is also what causes its transitivity at least in part of its use. Moreover, there exists a negative correlation between the degrees of transitivity and intimacy, as well as a positive correlation between the degree of transitivity and polysemy. The more intimate the relations ’hb encodes are (e.g., parent-child), the less transitive ’hb is, but the de-velopment of transitivity into less intimate relationships (e.g., human-divine) is parallel to the development of polysemy from the basic, primary to the more distant or abstract meaning of relationships. 9.4 ’hb and gender Despite the male-dominance and gender-based hierarchy in Kinship, there is solid indication of the significance of women in all levels of social life from kinship to politics and even to prophecy/religion. Although ’hb does not often denote a female’s experience, when it does it is meaningful not only in the immediate context but also beyond it. For example, Rebecca’s love for her son Jacob in Gen 25:28 is the opening signal of the long development of Jacob’s figure, from being the twin brother of firstborn Esau to becoming one of the ancestors of the people of Israel. The narrative of Rebecca and Jacob in Gen 25 clearly shows the significance of the bêt ’ēm (i.e., ‘the house of the mother’ in the terms of Chapman 2018) in ancient Israelite culture and, in particular, the influential role of the mother within the bêt ’āb ‘extended family’ (Chapter 6). Another occurrence of ’hb with a female lover occurs in 1 Sam 18 in the description of Michal’s love for David and its relation to Saul’s decision to allow David to marry her. This occurrence stresses the tension and rivalry between Saul and David, which slowly builds up, ending with the later anointment of David as king. Michal’s love thus adds to Jonathan’s love for David, and together they contribute to the increase in David’s status and simultaneous de-crease in Saul’s status. Finally, Ruth’s love for her mother in-law Naomi, as observed by Naomi’s friends in Ruth 4:15, is significant in more than one way. First, this use of ’hb entails the powerfulness that was attributed to Ruth in her care of and devotion to Naomi. As Naomi’s female friends say to her, Ruth, with her love of Naomi and her bearing a child who would become the heir of the property, is worth more to her than seven sons. The use of ’hb at that point in the narrative (i.e., toward its end) can be seen as a closing remark that summarises the events and the way that

Ruth, as the central figure, conducted her deeds. Furthermore, it was Ruth who initiated the genealogy of David (who would later become the king of Israel) and not Boaz, her husband and the father of her son. This occurrence of ’hb is also further indication of the significant status of the bet ’em that Chapman (2018) stressed. Perhaps even more convincing is the use of ’hb to denote specific cases of men’s love for women, i.e., Isaac’s love for Rebecca (Gen 24:67), Jacob’s love for Rachel (Gen 29), She-chem’s love for Dinah (Gen 34:3), and Elkanah’s love for Hannah (1 Sam 1:5). Each of these occurrences mark (or even trigger) very important developments in the formation of the people and the sociocultural order. Both Rebecca and Rachel are mother-ancestors, whose sons are significant figures. Hannah became the mother of Samuel, one of the most important prophets at the time of the people’s formation. The narrative of Dinah and Shechem demonstrates the significance of ethnic identity in the Hebrew Bible (see van Wolde 2008). As was argued in Chapter 4, the observed gender-based hierarchy in marriage relationships is particularly striking due to the relatively frequent occurrence of women with individual iden-tities in this domain. In fact, this hierarchical use of ’hb brings the identity of particular women to the foreground. Within the hierarchical structure of the kinship system and the common custom of polygamy, the association between affection and sentimental affinity in the context of marriage is not at all obvious. In the cases when ’hb does occur, it works in favour of the female-beloved, emphasising her active role, notable personality, or power. Women’s power in the biblical texts is often indicated by their hidden activities and conduct or by their presence in the narrative as women. Within the sociocultural model of ’hb in the present thesis, the observed pattern of gender-based hierarchy thus does not necessarily have a negative connota-tion or a discriminatory meaning (see also Nikolsky 2019). 9.5 ’hb in the light of linguistic and cultural interplay: some reflections On the one hand, the use of ’hb reflects the ancient Israelite culture and its sociocultural order, while on the other, it further shapes this culture by stressing significant values, contributing to their entrenchment, and emphasising priorities. The use of this lexeme reflects ancient concep-tions concerning different types of relationships, conduct and activities. Due to the prominence of the themes expressed in the texts, these conceptions are entrenched and become conventional in the biblical contexts so that the concept of ’hb is strongly associated with the sociocultural order. For example, the idea of a loving God expressed by ’hb in the domain of Divinity orig-inates from intimate kin relationships by means of conceptualisation, a common cognitive pro-cess. The eminent use of this idea in the biblical language leads to its entrenchment in both language and thought so that the concept of ’hb in Divinity becomes conventional regardless of a conscious association between it and intimate kin relationships. From a more general perspective, the use of ’hb displays the mutual influence between lan-guage and culture in a more complex way. The idea that language is a cognitive-cultural prod-uct is not new and is cross-linguistically indicated. The domains of time and space provide interesting evidence of this idea. For example, the use of spatial terms to denote temporal events, as in the examples of Dutch and English in (2).


Conclusions 167 ׀

9.3 Transitivity as a cultural phenomenon Conceptual analogy and cognitive processes also underlie the transitivity of ’hb. Transitivity is a complex grammatical phenomenon that involves morphosyntactic and semantic factors. Semantic transitivity can be understood to be scalar or else in terms of its prototypicality, in the present study based on Næss’s (2007) hypothesis of maximally semantically distinct par-ticipants, namely: an unaffected volitional, instigating agent and an affected non-volitional and non-instigating patient. The non-prototypical, but present transitivity of ’hb shows that seman-tic transitivity is not merely a grammatical category/phenomenon, but is also culture-related. The culture-dependent conceptualisation of ’hb is also the underlying motivation of the transi-tivity of this lexeme. Put differently, the specific use of ’hb and its tight relation to the soci-ocultural order of ancient Israel is also what causes its transitivity at least in part of its use. Moreover, there exists a negative correlation between the degrees of transitivity and intimacy, as well as a positive correlation between the degree of transitivity and polysemy. The more intimate the relations ’hb encodes are (e.g., parent-child), the less transitive ’hb is, but the de-velopment of transitivity into less intimate relationships (e.g., human-divine) is parallel to the development of polysemy from the basic, primary to the more distant or abstract meaning of relationships. 9.4 ’hb and gender Despite the male-dominance and gender-based hierarchy in Kinship, there is solid indication of the significance of women in all levels of social life from kinship to politics and even to prophecy/religion. Although ’hb does not often denote a female’s experience, when it does it is meaningful not only in the immediate context but also beyond it. For example, Rebecca’s love for her son Jacob in Gen 25:28 is the opening signal of the long development of Jacob’s figure, from being the twin brother of firstborn Esau to becoming one of the ancestors of the people of Israel. The narrative of Rebecca and Jacob in Gen 25 clearly shows the significance of the bêt ’ēm (i.e., ‘the house of the mother’ in the terms of Chapman 2018) in ancient Israelite culture and, in particular, the influential role of the mother within the bêt ’āb ‘extended family’ (Chapter 6). Another occurrence of ’hb with a female lover occurs in 1 Sam 18 in the description of Michal’s love for David and its relation to Saul’s decision to allow David to marry her. This occurrence stresses the tension and rivalry between Saul and David, which slowly builds up, ending with the later anointment of David as king. Michal’s love thus adds to Jonathan’s love for David, and together they contribute to the increase in David’s status and simultaneous de-crease in Saul’s status. Finally, Ruth’s love for her mother in-law Naomi, as observed by Naomi’s friends in Ruth 4:15, is significant in more than one way. First, this use of ’hb entails the powerfulness that was attributed to Ruth in her care of and devotion to Naomi. As Naomi’s female friends say to her, Ruth, with her love of Naomi and her bearing a child who would become the heir of the property, is worth more to her than seven sons. The use of ’hb at that point in the narrative (i.e., toward its end) can be seen as a closing remark that summarises the events and the way that

Ruth, as the central figure, conducted her deeds. Furthermore, it was Ruth who initiated the genealogy of David (who would later become the king of Israel) and not Boaz, her husband and the father of her son. This occurrence of ’hb is also further indication of the significant status of the bet ’em that Chapman (2018) stressed. Perhaps even more convincing is the use of ’hb to denote specific cases of men’s love for women, i.e., Isaac’s love for Rebecca (Gen 24:67), Jacob’s love for Rachel (Gen 29), She-chem’s love for Dinah (Gen 34:3), and Elkanah’s love for Hannah (1 Sam 1:5). Each of these occurrences mark (or even trigger) very important developments in the formation of the people and the sociocultural order. Both Rebecca and Rachel are mother-ancestors, whose sons are significant figures. Hannah became the mother of Samuel, one of the most important prophets at the time of the people’s formation. The narrative of Dinah and Shechem demonstrates the significance of ethnic identity in the Hebrew Bible (see van Wolde 2008). As was argued in Chapter 4, the observed gender-based hierarchy in marriage relationships is particularly striking due to the relatively frequent occurrence of women with individual iden-tities in this domain. In fact, this hierarchical use of ’hb brings the identity of particular women to the foreground. Within the hierarchical structure of the kinship system and the common custom of polygamy, the association between affection and sentimental affinity in the context of marriage is not at all obvious. In the cases when ’hb does occur, it works in favour of the female-beloved, emphasising her active role, notable personality, or power. Women’s power in the biblical texts is often indicated by their hidden activities and conduct or by their presence in the narrative as women. Within the sociocultural model of ’hb in the present thesis, the observed pattern of gender-based hierarchy thus does not necessarily have a negative connota-tion or a discriminatory meaning (see also Nikolsky 2019). 9.5 ’hb in the light of linguistic and cultural interplay: some reflections On the one hand, the use of ’hb reflects the ancient Israelite culture and its sociocultural order, while on the other, it further shapes this culture by stressing significant values, contributing to their entrenchment, and emphasising priorities. The use of this lexeme reflects ancient concep-tions concerning different types of relationships, conduct and activities. Due to the prominence of the themes expressed in the texts, these conceptions are entrenched and become conventional in the biblical contexts so that the concept of ’hb is strongly associated with the sociocultural order. For example, the idea of a loving God expressed by ’hb in the domain of Divinity orig-inates from intimate kin relationships by means of conceptualisation, a common cognitive pro-cess. The eminent use of this idea in the biblical language leads to its entrenchment in both language and thought so that the concept of ’hb in Divinity becomes conventional regardless of a conscious association between it and intimate kin relationships. From a more general perspective, the use of ’hb displays the mutual influence between lan-guage and culture in a more complex way. The idea that language is a cognitive-cultural prod-uct is not new and is cross-linguistically indicated. The domains of time and space provide interesting evidence of this idea. For example, the use of spatial terms to denote temporal events, as in the examples of Dutch and English in (2).


Chapter 9 ׀ 168

(2) a. De crisis is achter de rug the crisis is behind the back

‘The crisis is over’ b. Winter is approaching

The Dutch expression achter de rug ‘behind the back’ implies the conceptualisation of past time-events as something that the human experiencer has encountered on their way forward (it may have even inhibited this movement forward), and the experiencer has now passed it leav-ing it behind. Similarly, the English example shows that a future time-event is conceptualised as an approaching encounter; it is not yet with the experiencer but its approach is certain. On the other hand, different studies show that language also influences thought to some extent, and thus constitute the so called ‘weaker Whorfian’ view.38 Boroditsky (2001) found differences in the way Mandarin and English native speakers talk about time in English. Whereas English speakers mainly use horizontal language to talk about time (e.g., ahead or behind), Mandarin speakers also use vertical terms. Thus, in Mandarin earlier events can be encoded by the spatial morpheme shàng ‘up’ and later events by xià ‘down’. This difference in conceptualisation was found to be influential in experiments where Mandarin speakers were tested for their use of English terms of time. In another study, Boroditsky et al. (2003) found the grammatical gender of nouns in one language to influence the way speakers talk about the same nouns with different grammatical gender in another language. Returning to ’hb, it is possible to make an analogy between its use in BH and the bidirec-tional influence of language and thought. The present examination has shown how the social, prototypical hierarchical character of ’hb originates from the most intimate interpersonal rela-tionships, which are also the most fundamental relationships of ancient Israelite society. The extension of this use to other, less intimate, familiar contexts is enabled through the cognitive processes that are based on the conception of ’hb in its original contexts. This represents an influence of thought (i.e., culture-based conception) on the language. At the same time, the specific social use of ’hb along with the themes and values that it stresses, influence the com-plex social conception of this lexeme, which reaches beyond its basic, primary conception. In this case, it is not spontaneous language use which yields the bidirectional influence due pri-marily to the fact that the biblical texts are literary, conscious compositions. Yet, the promi-nence and status of the texts can be compared to natural language use in this regard. The anthropomorphism of God leads, in the case of ’hb, to the association of a divine entity with the most primary, intimate human relationships and conduct. This is the product of the culture-based cognitive perception of the reality, or, in other words, the conceptualisation of experience. The language validates this conceptualisation by bestowing a name on it. This naming strengthens the perception and further contributes to its entrenchment in the culture.

38 Whorf (1956) based his deterministic view on linguistic diversity, and suggested that linguistic categories de-termine the perception and understanding of the world, and hence, thought and action. Speakers of different lan-guages should, accordingly, perceive and act differently in similar situations. This hypothesis is known as the strong Whorf.

Hence, the specific use of ’hb reflects a cultural conception and, at the same time, further shapes it within the culture. This cognitive power of words in the formation of ideas and culture is evident in some bib-lical narratives, with or without the occurrence of ’hb. For example, in Genesis 1, it is not the creation of things by words (‘and God said’), but the naming of things (e.g., ‘day’, ‘night’, ‘light’, ‘darkness’) that made them what they are in our minds. In Gen 2:19–20, God introduces to the first man (who could speak) all the animals he created, in order to see what he would call them. The names given by the first man to the animals are what defines them, as before that there were only of two generic categories, either a ‘beast of the field’ or a ‘bird of the heaven’. This biblical understanding according to which things receive their essences, and even exist-ence, through their names echoes an ancient text that was written prior to the biblical period. In the Sumariam myth Enki and Ninhursagh the god Enki learns about plants through their names given to him by his servant Izimo (Kramer [translation and commentary] 1945: 197-204): (3) He said to his messenger Isimud: “Of the plants, their fate…, What, pray, is this? What, pray, is this?” His messenger answers him: “My [king], the ‘tree’-plant,” he says to him; He (i.e. Isimud) cuts it down for him, he (i.e. Enki) eats it. “My king, the ‘honey’-plant,” he says to him; He plucks it for him, he eats it. The metaphorical maxim in Prov 18:21, māwēt wəḥayîm bəyad lāšôn ‘Death and life are in the power (lit. hand) of language (lit. the tongue)’, most clearly summarises, and acknowledges the powerful role of language in thought and conceptualisation. 9.6 Contribution to biblical studies The present thesis is a step forward in biblical studies for its discussion of ’hb and emotions in the Hebrew Bible, and it contributes to the understanding of affection more broadly. The thesis continues and elaborates earlier lines of investigation that concerned in different ways the so-cial-relational character of ’hb, but unlike most of them (except for Bosman 2011) it includes the entire corpus of ’hb rather than concentrating on specific themes and text types. The social-relational character of ’hb is further developed to include all the sociocultural aspects involved in the use of this lexeme in the biblical texts. Considering BH as a form of language use, and taking a cognitive-linguistic approach ena-bles the exploration not only of the different senses of ’hb, but also, and most importantly, of the relations between them. The result is a comprehensive account of this lexeme which sheds light on conceptual commonalities that are not otherwise obviously revealed. Furthermore, this comprehensive account of ’hb reaches beyond the particular semantics and conceptualisation of each individual occurrence, as it reveals another layer of these semantics and


Conclusions 169 ׀

(2) a. De crisis is achter de rug the crisis is behind the back

‘The crisis is over’ b. Winter is approaching

The Dutch expression achter de rug ‘behind the back’ implies the conceptualisation of past time-events as something that the human experiencer has encountered on their way forward (it may have even inhibited this movement forward), and the experiencer has now passed it leav-ing it behind. Similarly, the English example shows that a future time-event is conceptualised as an approaching encounter; it is not yet with the experiencer but its approach is certain. On the other hand, different studies show that language also influences thought to some extent, and thus constitute the so called ‘weaker Whorfian’ view.38 Boroditsky (2001) found differences in the way Mandarin and English native speakers talk about time in English. Whereas English speakers mainly use horizontal language to talk about time (e.g., ahead or behind), Mandarin speakers also use vertical terms. Thus, in Mandarin earlier events can be encoded by the spatial morpheme shàng ‘up’ and later events by xià ‘down’. This difference in conceptualisation was found to be influential in experiments where Mandarin speakers were tested for their use of English terms of time. In another study, Boroditsky et al. (2003) found the grammatical gender of nouns in one language to influence the way speakers talk about the same nouns with different grammatical gender in another language. Returning to ’hb, it is possible to make an analogy between its use in BH and the bidirec-tional influence of language and thought. The present examination has shown how the social, prototypical hierarchical character of ’hb originates from the most intimate interpersonal rela-tionships, which are also the most fundamental relationships of ancient Israelite society. The extension of this use to other, less intimate, familiar contexts is enabled through the cognitive processes that are based on the conception of ’hb in its original contexts. This represents an influence of thought (i.e., culture-based conception) on the language. At the same time, the specific social use of ’hb along with the themes and values that it stresses, influence the com-plex social conception of this lexeme, which reaches beyond its basic, primary conception. In this case, it is not spontaneous language use which yields the bidirectional influence due pri-marily to the fact that the biblical texts are literary, conscious compositions. Yet, the promi-nence and status of the texts can be compared to natural language use in this regard. The anthropomorphism of God leads, in the case of ’hb, to the association of a divine entity with the most primary, intimate human relationships and conduct. This is the product of the culture-based cognitive perception of the reality, or, in other words, the conceptualisation of experience. The language validates this conceptualisation by bestowing a name on it. This naming strengthens the perception and further contributes to its entrenchment in the culture.

38 Whorf (1956) based his deterministic view on linguistic diversity, and suggested that linguistic categories de-termine the perception and understanding of the world, and hence, thought and action. Speakers of different lan-guages should, accordingly, perceive and act differently in similar situations. This hypothesis is known as the strong Whorf.

Hence, the specific use of ’hb reflects a cultural conception and, at the same time, further shapes it within the culture. This cognitive power of words in the formation of ideas and culture is evident in some bib-lical narratives, with or without the occurrence of ’hb. For example, in Genesis 1, it is not the creation of things by words (‘and God said’), but the naming of things (e.g., ‘day’, ‘night’, ‘light’, ‘darkness’) that made them what they are in our minds. In Gen 2:19–20, God introduces to the first man (who could speak) all the animals he created, in order to see what he would call them. The names given by the first man to the animals are what defines them, as before that there were only of two generic categories, either a ‘beast of the field’ or a ‘bird of the heaven’. This biblical understanding according to which things receive their essences, and even exist-ence, through their names echoes an ancient text that was written prior to the biblical period. In the Sumariam myth Enki and Ninhursagh the god Enki learns about plants through their names given to him by his servant Izimo (Kramer [translation and commentary] 1945: 197-204): (3) He said to his messenger Isimud: “Of the plants, their fate…, What, pray, is this? What, pray, is this?” His messenger answers him: “My [king], the ‘tree’-plant,” he says to him; He (i.e. Isimud) cuts it down for him, he (i.e. Enki) eats it. “My king, the ‘honey’-plant,” he says to him; He plucks it for him, he eats it. The metaphorical maxim in Prov 18:21, māwēt wəḥayîm bəyad lāšôn ‘Death and life are in the power (lit. hand) of language (lit. the tongue)’, most clearly summarises, and acknowledges the powerful role of language in thought and conceptualisation. 9.6 Contribution to biblical studies The present thesis is a step forward in biblical studies for its discussion of ’hb and emotions in the Hebrew Bible, and it contributes to the understanding of affection more broadly. The thesis continues and elaborates earlier lines of investigation that concerned in different ways the so-cial-relational character of ’hb, but unlike most of them (except for Bosman 2011) it includes the entire corpus of ’hb rather than concentrating on specific themes and text types. The social-relational character of ’hb is further developed to include all the sociocultural aspects involved in the use of this lexeme in the biblical texts. Considering BH as a form of language use, and taking a cognitive-linguistic approach ena-bles the exploration not only of the different senses of ’hb, but also, and most importantly, of the relations between them. The result is a comprehensive account of this lexeme which sheds light on conceptual commonalities that are not otherwise obviously revealed. Furthermore, this comprehensive account of ’hb reaches beyond the particular semantics and conceptualisation of each individual occurrence, as it reveals another layer of these semantics and


Chapter 9 ׀ 170

conceptualisation, namely the sociocultural role of ’hb or, in other words, the sociocultural model that it offers. This thesis takes a bottom-up approach through which the complexity of ’hb as a social-relational emotion concept is well constructed without losing sight of its many different components.

Bibliography Abart, C. (2015). Moments of joy and lasting happiness. In Reif, S. C., and Egger-Wenzel (Eds.), Ancient Jewish prayers and emotions, 19-40. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110369083-002 Abu-Lughod, L. and Lutz, C. A. (1990). Introduction: Emotion, discourse, and the politics of everyday life. In Abu-Lughod, L. and Lutz, C. A. (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sociences de l’Homme, 1-23. Ackerman, S. (2002). The personal is political: Covenantal and affectionate love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum 52(4), 437-458. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585137 Amzallag, N. (2015). Furnace remelting as the expression of YHWH’s holiness: Evidence from the meaning of qannā’ ( אנק( in the divine context. JNL 134(2), 233-252. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1342.2015.2813 Anderson, G. A. (1996). A time to mourn, a time to dance: The expression of grief and joy in Israelite religion. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 55(3), 213-215. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/545891 Armon-Jones, C. (1986). “The thesis of constructionism”. In Harré, R. (Ed.), The social con-struction of emotions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 32-56. Arnold, B. T. (2011). The love-fear antinomy in Deuteronomy 5-11. Vetus Testamentum 61, 551-569. doi: 10.1163/156853311X560754 Athanasiadou, A. and Tabakowska, E. (Eds.) (1998). Speaking of Emotions: Conceptualisation and expression. Berlin / Ney York: Mouton De Gruyter. Averill, J. (1980). A constructivist view of emotion. In Plutchik, R. and Kelermann, H. (Eds.), Theories of emotion. Cambridge MAS: Academic Press, 305-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-558701-3.50018-1 Avrahami, Y. (2020). שוב in the Psalms: Shame or disappointment? Journal for the study of the Old Testament 34(3), 295-313. doi: 10.1177/0309089210363026 Barrett Feldman, L. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10(1), 20-46. https://doi-org.ru.idm.oclc.org/10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr1001_2 Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59, 617-45. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 Batic, G. C. (2011). Love encoding in Hausa. In Batic, G. C. (Ed.), Encoding emotions in African languages. LINCOM Studies in African Languages 84, 138-151. Munic: LINCOM Eu-ropa.


conceptualisation, namely the sociocultural role of ’hb or, in other words, the sociocultural model that it offers. This thesis takes a bottom-up approach through which the complexity of ’hb as a social-relational emotion concept is well constructed without losing sight of its many different components.

Bibliography Abart, C. (2015). Moments of joy and lasting happiness. In Reif, S. C., and Egger-Wenzel (Eds.), Ancient Jewish prayers and emotions, 19-40. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110369083-002 Abu-Lughod, L. and Lutz, C. A. (1990). Introduction: Emotion, discourse, and the politics of everyday life. In Abu-Lughod, L. and Lutz, C. A. (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sociences de l’Homme, 1-23. Ackerman, S. (2002). The personal is political: Covenantal and affectionate love (’āhēb, ’ahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum 52(4), 437-458. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1585137 Amzallag, N. (2015). Furnace remelting as the expression of YHWH’s holiness: Evidence from the meaning of qannā’ ( אנק( in the divine context. JNL 134(2), 233-252. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1342.2015.2813 Anderson, G. A. (1996). A time to mourn, a time to dance: The expression of grief and joy in Israelite religion. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 55(3), 213-215. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/545891 Armon-Jones, C. (1986). “The thesis of constructionism”. In Harré, R. (Ed.), The social con-struction of emotions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 32-56. Arnold, B. T. (2011). The love-fear antinomy in Deuteronomy 5-11. Vetus Testamentum 61, 551-569. doi: 10.1163/156853311X560754 Athanasiadou, A. and Tabakowska, E. (Eds.) (1998). Speaking of Emotions: Conceptualisation and expression. Berlin / Ney York: Mouton De Gruyter. Averill, J. (1980). A constructivist view of emotion. In Plutchik, R. and Kelermann, H. (Eds.), Theories of emotion. Cambridge MAS: Academic Press, 305-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-558701-3.50018-1 Avrahami, Y. (2020). שוב in the Psalms: Shame or disappointment? Journal for the study of the Old Testament 34(3), 295-313. doi: 10.1177/0309089210363026 Barrett Feldman, L. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10(1), 20-46. https://doi-org.ru.idm.oclc.org/10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr1001_2 Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59, 617-45. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 Batic, G. C. (2011). Love encoding in Hausa. In Batic, G. C. (Ed.), Encoding emotions in African languages. LINCOM Studies in African Languages 84, 138-151. Munic: LINCOM Eu-ropa.


Bibliography ׀ 172

Batic, G. C. (2017). Emotions in Hausa: Encoding strategies between cognition, culture and lexicon. In Tersis, N. and Boyeldieu [Eds], Le language de l’émotion: variations linguistiques et culturelles 469, 481-500 (serie: SELAF – Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthro-pologiques de France). Berlin, B., and Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley / Los Angeles / Oxford: University of California Press. Besnier, N. (1990). Language and affect. Annual Review of Anthropology 19, 419-451. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155972 Boroditski, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ concep-tions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1-22. doi: 0.1006/cogp.2001.0748 Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, A., and Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D., and Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in study of language and thought. Cambridge, MAS/London: MIT Press, 61-80. Bosman, T. (2011). Biblical Hebrew lexicology and cognitive semantics: A study of lexemes of affection. A PhD dissertation, the University of Stellenbosch. Bosman, H. (2012). Being wise betwixt order and mystery: Keeping the commandments and fearing the lord. Scriptura 111(3), 433-439. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC133743 Botta, A. F. (2013). Hated by the gods and your spouse: Legal use of אנש in Elphantine and its ancient Near Eastern context. In Hagedron, A. C., and Kratz, R. G. (Eds.), Law & religion in the Eastern Mediterranean, from Antiquity to early Islam. Oxford: Oxford University press, 105-128. Brenneis, D. (1990). Shared and solitary sentiments: the discourse of friendship, play, and an-ger in Bhatgaon. In Lutz, C. A., and Abu-Lughos, L. (Eds.), Language and the politics of emo-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sociences de l’Homme, 113-125. Brenner, A. (1997). The intercourse of knowledge: On gendering desire and ‘sexuality’ in the Hebrew Bible. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill. Brown, T. (1822). Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind. Andover: Flagg and Gould. Accessible online at www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43116. Chapman, C. R. (2016). The house of the mother: The social roles of maternal kin in Biblical Hebrew narrative and poetry. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Clausner, T. C and Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1), 1031. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001 Clines, D. J. A. (2003). ‘The fear of the lord is wisdom’ (Job 28.28): A semantic and contextual study. In van Wolde, E. (Ed.), Job 28. Cognition in context, Biblical interpretation series 64, 57-92. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Coleman, S. (2018). The Biblical Hebrew Transitivity Alternation in Cognitive Linguistics Per-spective. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicag/London: The University of Chicago Press. ----- (1993). Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky, J. (Ed.), Seman-tics and the lexicon, 55-72. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ----- (1994). Voice: Beyond control and affectedness. In Fox, B., and Hopper, P. J. (Eds.), Voice: form and function. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benhamins Publishing Company, 89-118. Croft, W., and Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Cross, F. M. (1998). From epic to canon. Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Danon, G. (2001). Syntactic definiteness in the grammar of Moden Hebrew. Linguistics 39(6), 1071-1116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.042 Divjak, D., and Fieller, N. (2014). Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Glynn, D., and Robinson, J. A. (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 405-442. Divjak, D., and Gries, S. Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioural pro-files. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1), 23-60. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2006.002 ----- (2008). Clusters in the mind?: Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2), 188-213. doi: 10.1075/ml.3.2.03div ----- (2009). Corpus-based cognitive semantics: A contrastive study of phasal verbs in English and Russian. In Dzieirek, K., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Eds.), Studies in cognitive cor-pus linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 273-96. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge MAS/London: Harvard University Press. Doob Sakenfeld, C. (1987). Loyalty and love: The language of human interconnections in the Hebrew Bible. In O’Connor, P. & Freedman, D. N. (Eds.), Backgrounds for the Bible. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 215-230. Dor, D. (2015). The instruction of imagination. Oxford/New York: London University press. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3), 547-619. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/415037


Bibliography 173 ׀

Batic, G. C. (2017). Emotions in Hausa: Encoding strategies between cognition, culture and lexicon. In Tersis, N. and Boyeldieu [Eds], Le language de l’émotion: variations linguistiques et culturelles 469, 481-500 (serie: SELAF – Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthro-pologiques de France). Berlin, B., and Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley / Los Angeles / Oxford: University of California Press. Besnier, N. (1990). Language and affect. Annual Review of Anthropology 19, 419-451. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155972 Boroditski, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ concep-tions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1-22. doi: 0.1006/cogp.2001.0748 Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, A., and Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D., and Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in study of language and thought. Cambridge, MAS/London: MIT Press, 61-80. Bosman, T. (2011). Biblical Hebrew lexicology and cognitive semantics: A study of lexemes of affection. A PhD dissertation, the University of Stellenbosch. Bosman, H. (2012). Being wise betwixt order and mystery: Keeping the commandments and fearing the lord. Scriptura 111(3), 433-439. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC133743 Botta, A. F. (2013). Hated by the gods and your spouse: Legal use of אנש in Elphantine and its ancient Near Eastern context. In Hagedron, A. C., and Kratz, R. G. (Eds.), Law & religion in the Eastern Mediterranean, from Antiquity to early Islam. Oxford: Oxford University press, 105-128. Brenneis, D. (1990). Shared and solitary sentiments: the discourse of friendship, play, and an-ger in Bhatgaon. In Lutz, C. A., and Abu-Lughos, L. (Eds.), Language and the politics of emo-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sociences de l’Homme, 113-125. Brenner, A. (1997). The intercourse of knowledge: On gendering desire and ‘sexuality’ in the Hebrew Bible. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill. Brown, T. (1822). Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind. Andover: Flagg and Gould. Accessible online at www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43116. Chapman, C. R. (2016). The house of the mother: The social roles of maternal kin in Biblical Hebrew narrative and poetry. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Clausner, T. C and Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1), 1031. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001 Clines, D. J. A. (2003). ‘The fear of the lord is wisdom’ (Job 28.28): A semantic and contextual study. In van Wolde, E. (Ed.), Job 28. Cognition in context, Biblical interpretation series 64, 57-92. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Coleman, S. (2018). The Biblical Hebrew Transitivity Alternation in Cognitive Linguistics Per-spective. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicag/London: The University of Chicago Press. ----- (1993). Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky, J. (Ed.), Seman-tics and the lexicon, 55-72. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ----- (1994). Voice: Beyond control and affectedness. In Fox, B., and Hopper, P. J. (Eds.), Voice: form and function. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benhamins Publishing Company, 89-118. Croft, W., and Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Cross, F. M. (1998). From epic to canon. Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Danon, G. (2001). Syntactic definiteness in the grammar of Moden Hebrew. Linguistics 39(6), 1071-1116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.042 Divjak, D., and Fieller, N. (2014). Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Glynn, D., and Robinson, J. A. (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 405-442. Divjak, D., and Gries, S. Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioural pro-files. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1), 23-60. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2006.002 ----- (2008). Clusters in the mind?: Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2), 188-213. doi: 10.1075/ml.3.2.03div ----- (2009). Corpus-based cognitive semantics: A contrastive study of phasal verbs in English and Russian. In Dzieirek, K., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Eds.), Studies in cognitive cor-pus linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 273-96. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge MAS/London: Harvard University Press. Doob Sakenfeld, C. (1987). Loyalty and love: The language of human interconnections in the Hebrew Bible. In O’Connor, P. & Freedman, D. N. (Eds.), Backgrounds for the Bible. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 215-230. Dor, D. (2015). The instruction of imagination. Oxford/New York: London University press. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3), 547-619. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/415037


Bibliography ׀ 174

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the human face: guid-lines for research and an integration of findings. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press. Ekman, P. (1992). Are there basic emotions? Psycological Review 99(3), 550-553. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.550 Evans, V., and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinbirgh University Press. Fetterman, A. K., Robinson, D. G., and Eliiot, A. J. (2011). Anger as seeing red: Perceptual sources of evidence. Social Psychology and Personality Science 2(3), 311-316. doi: 10.1177/1948550610390051 Foolen, A. (2012). The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. In Foolen, A., Lü-dtke, U. M., Racine, T. P., and Zlatev, J. (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion & emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub-lishing Company, 349-469. ----- (2016). Expressives. In Riemer, N. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge, 473-490. Geeraerts, D. (1989). Introduction: Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics 27, 587-612. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.4.587 Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University press. Geerarts, D. & Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and meta-phorical patterns. In J. R. Taylor and R. E. Macklaury (Eds.), Language and cognitive construal of the world. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 153-179. Gibbs, R. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-ing Company. Glynn, D. (2014). The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In Glynn, D., and Robinson, J. A. (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 117-144. Grant, D. E. (2010). A brief discussion of the difference between human and divine המח . Biblica 91, 418-424. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614997 ----- (2011). Human anger in Biblical literature. Revue Biblique 118(3), 339-361. ----- (2014). Divine anger in the Hebrew Bible. Washington D. C.: The Catholic Biblical As-sociation of America. ----- (2015). Fire and the body of Yahweh. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40(2), 139-161. doi: 10.1177/0309089215621240

----- (2019). How to love God: Deuteronomy, early Rabbinic literature, and Gospel texts. The Journal of Interreligious Studies 26, 58-74. Gries, S. Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In Gries, S. Th., and Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 57-100. ----- (2009). Statistics for linguistics with R. Berlin: Mouton de Gtuyter. Gries, S. Th., and Divjak, D. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In Evans, V., and Pourcel, S. (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 57-75. Gries, S. Th., and Stefanowitsch, A. (2010). In Rice, S., and Newman, J. (Eds.), Cluster anal-ysis and the identification of collexeme classes. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cog-nitive/Functional Research. CSLI Publications/Center for the Study of Language and Infor-mation, 73-90. Gruber, M. I. (1990). Fear, anxiety and reverence in Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew and other Northwest Semitic languages. Vetus Testamentum 40(4), 411-422. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519227 Gubler, M. L. (2005). You words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart (Jer 15:16). Theology Digest 52(1), 37-41. Harré, R. (1986). “An outline of the social constructionist viewpoint”. In Harré, R. (Ed.), The social construction of emotions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2-14. Hopper, P. J., and Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2), 251-299. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413757 Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3), 369-411. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178548 Jackson, J. C., Watts, J., Henry, T. R., List, J-M., Forkel, R., Mucha, P. J., Greenhill, S. J., Gray, R. D., and Linquist, K. A. (2019). Emotion semantics show both cultural variation and universal structure. Science 366, 1517-1522. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw8160 Jindo, J. Y. (2011). On the biblical notion of the “Fear of Gog” as a condition for human exist-ence. Biblical Interpretation 19, 433-453. doi: 10.1163/156851511X595503 Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2007). Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 18(3), 417-443. doi 10.1515/COG.2007.023 Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chcago/London: The University of Chcago Press. Kaddari, M. Z. (2006). A dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Alef-Taw): O ṣar lešon ha-miqra’ me-alef ‘ad taw. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. [Hebrew]


Bibliography 175 ׀

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the human face: guid-lines for research and an integration of findings. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press. Ekman, P. (1992). Are there basic emotions? Psycological Review 99(3), 550-553. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.550 Evans, V., and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinbirgh University Press. Fetterman, A. K., Robinson, D. G., and Eliiot, A. J. (2011). Anger as seeing red: Perceptual sources of evidence. Social Psychology and Personality Science 2(3), 311-316. doi: 10.1177/1948550610390051 Foolen, A. (2012). The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. In Foolen, A., Lü-dtke, U. M., Racine, T. P., and Zlatev, J. (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion & emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub-lishing Company, 349-469. ----- (2016). Expressives. In Riemer, N. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge, 473-490. Geeraerts, D. (1989). Introduction: Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics 27, 587-612. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.4.587 Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University press. Geerarts, D. & Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and meta-phorical patterns. In J. R. Taylor and R. E. Macklaury (Eds.), Language and cognitive construal of the world. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 153-179. Gibbs, R. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-ing Company. Glynn, D. (2014). The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In Glynn, D., and Robinson, J. A. (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 117-144. Grant, D. E. (2010). A brief discussion of the difference between human and divine המח . Biblica 91, 418-424. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614997 ----- (2011). Human anger in Biblical literature. Revue Biblique 118(3), 339-361. ----- (2014). Divine anger in the Hebrew Bible. Washington D. C.: The Catholic Biblical As-sociation of America. ----- (2015). Fire and the body of Yahweh. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40(2), 139-161. doi: 10.1177/0309089215621240

----- (2019). How to love God: Deuteronomy, early Rabbinic literature, and Gospel texts. The Journal of Interreligious Studies 26, 58-74. Gries, S. Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In Gries, S. Th., and Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 57-100. ----- (2009). Statistics for linguistics with R. Berlin: Mouton de Gtuyter. Gries, S. Th., and Divjak, D. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In Evans, V., and Pourcel, S. (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 57-75. Gries, S. Th., and Stefanowitsch, A. (2010). In Rice, S., and Newman, J. (Eds.), Cluster anal-ysis and the identification of collexeme classes. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cog-nitive/Functional Research. CSLI Publications/Center for the Study of Language and Infor-mation, 73-90. Gruber, M. I. (1990). Fear, anxiety and reverence in Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew and other Northwest Semitic languages. Vetus Testamentum 40(4), 411-422. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519227 Gubler, M. L. (2005). You words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart (Jer 15:16). Theology Digest 52(1), 37-41. Harré, R. (1986). “An outline of the social constructionist viewpoint”. In Harré, R. (Ed.), The social construction of emotions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2-14. Hopper, P. J., and Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2), 251-299. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413757 Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3), 369-411. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178548 Jackson, J. C., Watts, J., Henry, T. R., List, J-M., Forkel, R., Mucha, P. J., Greenhill, S. J., Gray, R. D., and Linquist, K. A. (2019). Emotion semantics show both cultural variation and universal structure. Science 366, 1517-1522. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw8160 Jindo, J. Y. (2011). On the biblical notion of the “Fear of Gog” as a condition for human exist-ence. Biblical Interpretation 19, 433-453. doi: 10.1163/156851511X595503 Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2007). Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 18(3), 417-443. doi 10.1515/COG.2007.023 Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chcago/London: The University of Chcago Press. Kaddari, M. Z. (2006). A dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Alef-Taw): O ṣar lešon ha-miqra’ me-alef ‘ad taw. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. [Hebrew]


Bibliography ׀ 176

Kazen, T. (2017a). Disgust in body, mind, and language: The case of impurity in the Hebrew Bible. In Scott Spencer, F. (Ed.), Mixed feelings and vexed passions: Exploring emotions in biblical literature. Atlanta: SBL Press, 97-115. ----- (2017b). Emotional ethics in biblical texts: Cultural construction and biological bases of morality. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6(4), 431-456. Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. King, P. (2010). Surrounded by bitterness: Image schema and metaphors for conceptualising distress in classical Hebrew. A PhD dissertation. Brunel University. Kotzé, Z. (2004). The conceptualisation of anger in the Hebrew Bible. A PhD dissertation. University of Stellenbosch. Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ----- (1989). Emotion concepts. New York: Springer-Verlag. ----- (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University press. ----- (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity press. Kövecses, Z., Palmer, G. B. (1999). Language and emotion concepts: What experientialists and social constructionists have in common. In Palmer, G.b., and Occhi, D. J. (Eds.), Lan-guages of sentiment. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John benjamins Publishing Compant, 237-262. Kramer, S. N. (1945). Enki and Ninhursag: A Sumerian “paradise” myth. Buletin of the Amer-ican Schools of Oriental Research, Supplementary Studies, No. 1. New Haven: American Schools of oriental Research. Kroeze, D. G. (2004). A semantic study of the lexical field of ‘fear’ terms in Biblical Hebrew. A PhD dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kruger, P. A. (2000). A cognitive interpretation of the emotion of anger in the Hebrew Bible. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26(1), 181-193. ----- P. A. (2001). A cognitive interpretation of the emotion of fear in the Hebrew Bible. Jour-nal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27(2), 77-89. ----- P. A. (2015). Emotions in the Hebrew bible: A few observations on prospects and chal-lenges. Old Testament Essays 28(2), 395-420. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories revearl about the mind. Chicago/Londo: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/Londo: The University of Chicago Press. ----- (1987). Philosophy in the flash: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books. Lakoff, G. and Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in Americal Eng-lish. In Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University press. Lambert, D. A. (2016). Refreshing philology: James Barr, superssesionism, and the state of biblical words. Biblical Interpretation 24, 332-356. doi 10.1163/15685152-00243P03 Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volum II: Descriptive applica-tion. Stanford: Stanfor university press. Lapsley, J. E. (2003). Feeling our way: Love for god in Deuteronomy. The Catholic Quarterly 65(3), 350-369. Lasater, P. M. (2017). “The emotions” in biblical anthropology? A genealogy and case study with ארי . Harvard Theological Review 110(4), 520-540. Lehmann, G. (2004). Reconstructing the social landscape of early Israel: Rural marriage alli-ances in central hill country. Journal of the Institute of Archeology of tel Aviv University 31(2), 141-193. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evi-dence. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., and Garret, M (Eds.), Language and space. Cam-bridge MAS: MIT Press, 109-169. Levinson Kasle, A. (2019). An analysis of the role of shaming and shame in the Tanakh: The divine response to arrogance. A PhD dissertation. Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Lewansowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2007). Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Geera-erts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxfor University Press, 139-169. Van Loon, H. (2012). The variational use of the particle תא with subject and direct object. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 38(1), 93-114. Lutz, C. A. (1982). The domain of emotion words on Ifaluk. American Ethnologist 9(1), 113-128. ----- (1988). Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian atoll & their chal-lenge to Western theory. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago press. ----- (1990). Engendered emotion: Gender, power, and the rhetoric of emotional control in American discourse. In L. Abu-Lughod and C. A. Lutz (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sociences de l’Homme, 69-91.


Bibliography 177 ׀

Kazen, T. (2017a). Disgust in body, mind, and language: The case of impurity in the Hebrew Bible. In Scott Spencer, F. (Ed.), Mixed feelings and vexed passions: Exploring emotions in biblical literature. Atlanta: SBL Press, 97-115. ----- (2017b). Emotional ethics in biblical texts: Cultural construction and biological bases of morality. Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6(4), 431-456. Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. King, P. (2010). Surrounded by bitterness: Image schema and metaphors for conceptualising distress in classical Hebrew. A PhD dissertation. Brunel University. Kotzé, Z. (2004). The conceptualisation of anger in the Hebrew Bible. A PhD dissertation. University of Stellenbosch. Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ----- (1989). Emotion concepts. New York: Springer-Verlag. ----- (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University press. ----- (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity press. Kövecses, Z., Palmer, G. B. (1999). Language and emotion concepts: What experientialists and social constructionists have in common. In Palmer, G.b., and Occhi, D. J. (Eds.), Lan-guages of sentiment. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John benjamins Publishing Compant, 237-262. Kramer, S. N. (1945). Enki and Ninhursag: A Sumerian “paradise” myth. Buletin of the Amer-ican Schools of Oriental Research, Supplementary Studies, No. 1. New Haven: American Schools of oriental Research. Kroeze, D. G. (2004). A semantic study of the lexical field of ‘fear’ terms in Biblical Hebrew. A PhD dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kruger, P. A. (2000). A cognitive interpretation of the emotion of anger in the Hebrew Bible. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26(1), 181-193. ----- P. A. (2001). A cognitive interpretation of the emotion of fear in the Hebrew Bible. Jour-nal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27(2), 77-89. ----- P. A. (2015). Emotions in the Hebrew bible: A few observations on prospects and chal-lenges. Old Testament Essays 28(2), 395-420. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories revearl about the mind. Chicago/Londo: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/Londo: The University of Chicago Press. ----- (1987). Philosophy in the flash: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books. Lakoff, G. and Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in Americal Eng-lish. In Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University press. Lambert, D. A. (2016). Refreshing philology: James Barr, superssesionism, and the state of biblical words. Biblical Interpretation 24, 332-356. doi 10.1163/15685152-00243P03 Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volum II: Descriptive applica-tion. Stanford: Stanfor university press. Lapsley, J. E. (2003). Feeling our way: Love for god in Deuteronomy. The Catholic Quarterly 65(3), 350-369. Lasater, P. M. (2017). “The emotions” in biblical anthropology? A genealogy and case study with ארי . Harvard Theological Review 110(4), 520-540. Lehmann, G. (2004). Reconstructing the social landscape of early Israel: Rural marriage alli-ances in central hill country. Journal of the Institute of Archeology of tel Aviv University 31(2), 141-193. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evi-dence. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., and Garret, M (Eds.), Language and space. Cam-bridge MAS: MIT Press, 109-169. Levinson Kasle, A. (2019). An analysis of the role of shaming and shame in the Tanakh: The divine response to arrogance. A PhD dissertation. Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Lewansowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2007). Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Geera-erts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxfor University Press, 139-169. Van Loon, H. (2012). The variational use of the particle תא with subject and direct object. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 38(1), 93-114. Lutz, C. A. (1982). The domain of emotion words on Ifaluk. American Ethnologist 9(1), 113-128. ----- (1988). Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian atoll & their chal-lenge to Western theory. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago press. ----- (1990). Engendered emotion: Gender, power, and the rhetoric of emotional control in American discourse. In L. Abu-Lughod and C. A. Lutz (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sociences de l’Homme, 69-91.


Bibliography ׀ 178

Majid, A. (2012). Current emotion research in the language science. Emotion Review 4(4), 432-443. doi:10.1177/1754073912445827 Malchukov, A. I. (2005). Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In M. Amberber and H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case. Amsterdam: Elsecier, 73-118. doi:10.1016/B978-00844651-6/5006-9 Marmelstein, A. (2013). Love and hate at Qumran: The social construction of Sectarian emo-tion. Dead Sea Discoveries 20, 237-363. doi:10.1163/15685179-12341262 Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In J. R. Taylor and R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 137-152. Mikołajczuk, A. (1998). The metonymic and metaphorical conceptualisation of anger in Polish. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisa-tion and expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 153-190. Mirguet, F. (2016). What is “Emotion” in the Hebrew Bible?: An experience that exceeds most contemporary concepts. Biblical Interpretation 24, 442-465. doi:10.1163/15685152-02445P02 Moran, W. L. (1963). The Ancient Near Eastern background of the love of God in Deuteron-omy. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25(1), 77-87. https://www-jstor-org.ru.idm.oclc.org/sta-ble/43711394 Mostovaja, A. D. (1998). On emotions that one can “immerse into”, “fall into” and “come to”: The semantics of a few Russian prepositional constructions. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisation and expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 295-330. Muffs, Y. (1979). Love and joy as metaphors of volition in Hebrew and related literatures, Part II: The joy of giving. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 11(1), 92-111. Mumford, D. B. (1992). Emotional distress in the Hebrew Bible: Somatic or psychological? British Journal of Psychiatry 160, 92-97. doi:https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.160.1.92 Næss, Å. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-ing Company. Nikolsky, R. (2019). בהא (to love) in the Bible: A cognitive Evolutionary approach. In R. Ni-kolsky, I. Czachesz, F. S. Tappenden, and T. Biró, Language, cognition, and biblical Exegesis: Interpreting minds. London: Bloomsbury, 70-87. Noll, K. L. (2013). Canaan and Israel in antiquity: A textbook on history and religion. London: Bloomsbury. Nutkowicz, H. (2007). Concerning the verb śn’ in Judeo-Aramaic contracts from Elephentine. Journal of Semitic Studies LII(2), 211-225. doi:10.1093/jss/fgm002

Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pawlak, N. (2009). Conceptualization of emotions in African languages and the context of African personality. In N. Pawlak (Ed.), Codes and rituals of emotions in Asian and African cultures. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy ELIPSA, 95-109. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper & Row, Pub-lishers. Prinz, J. J. (2005). Passionate toughts: The emotional embodiment of moral concepts. In D. Pecher and R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounded cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking. Cambridge: Cambrisge University press, 93-114. Quinn, N. (1991). The cultural basis of metaphors. In J. W. Fernandez (Ed.), Beyond meta-phors: The theory of tropes in anthropology. Stanford: Stanford University press, 56-93. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1964 [1922]). The Andaman islanders. New York: The free press. Radden, G. (1998). The conceptualization of emotional causality by means of prepositional phrases. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisa-tion and expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 273-294. Rice, S. A. (1987). Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. Ann Arbor: UMI. ----- (1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Püta and R. Dirven (Eds.), The costrual of space in language and thought. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 136-156. Rosaldo, M. Z. (1983). The shame of headhunters and the autonomy of self. Ethos 11(3), 135-151. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/639969 Rosch, E. (1975a). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 7, 532-547. ----- (1978). Principles of Categorization. In: E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 27-48. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., and Boyes-Bream, P. (1976). Basic objects in matural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382-439. Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., and Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(4), 574-586. Sandra, D. and S. Rice (1995). Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user? Cognitive Linguistics 6(1), 89-130. Sauter, D. A., LeGuen, O., and Haun, D. B. M. (2011). Categorical perception of emotional facial expressions does not require lexical categories. Emotion 11(6), 1479-1483. doi: 10.1037/a0025336


Bibliography 179 ׀

Majid, A. (2012). Current emotion research in the language science. Emotion Review 4(4), 432-443. doi:10.1177/1754073912445827 Malchukov, A. I. (2005). Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In M. Amberber and H. de Hoop (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case. Amsterdam: Elsecier, 73-118. doi:10.1016/B978-00844651-6/5006-9 Marmelstein, A. (2013). Love and hate at Qumran: The social construction of Sectarian emo-tion. Dead Sea Discoveries 20, 237-363. doi:10.1163/15685179-12341262 Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In J. R. Taylor and R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 137-152. Mikołajczuk, A. (1998). The metonymic and metaphorical conceptualisation of anger in Polish. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisa-tion and expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 153-190. Mirguet, F. (2016). What is “Emotion” in the Hebrew Bible?: An experience that exceeds most contemporary concepts. Biblical Interpretation 24, 442-465. doi:10.1163/15685152-02445P02 Moran, W. L. (1963). The Ancient Near Eastern background of the love of God in Deuteron-omy. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25(1), 77-87. https://www-jstor-org.ru.idm.oclc.org/sta-ble/43711394 Mostovaja, A. D. (1998). On emotions that one can “immerse into”, “fall into” and “come to”: The semantics of a few Russian prepositional constructions. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisation and expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 295-330. Muffs, Y. (1979). Love and joy as metaphors of volition in Hebrew and related literatures, Part II: The joy of giving. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 11(1), 92-111. Mumford, D. B. (1992). Emotional distress in the Hebrew Bible: Somatic or psychological? British Journal of Psychiatry 160, 92-97. doi:https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.160.1.92 Næss, Å. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-ing Company. Nikolsky, R. (2019). בהא (to love) in the Bible: A cognitive Evolutionary approach. In R. Ni-kolsky, I. Czachesz, F. S. Tappenden, and T. Biró, Language, cognition, and biblical Exegesis: Interpreting minds. London: Bloomsbury, 70-87. Noll, K. L. (2013). Canaan and Israel in antiquity: A textbook on history and religion. London: Bloomsbury. Nutkowicz, H. (2007). Concerning the verb śn’ in Judeo-Aramaic contracts from Elephentine. Journal of Semitic Studies LII(2), 211-225. doi:10.1093/jss/fgm002

Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pawlak, N. (2009). Conceptualization of emotions in African languages and the context of African personality. In N. Pawlak (Ed.), Codes and rituals of emotions in Asian and African cultures. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy ELIPSA, 95-109. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper & Row, Pub-lishers. Prinz, J. J. (2005). Passionate toughts: The emotional embodiment of moral concepts. In D. Pecher and R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounded cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking. Cambridge: Cambrisge University press, 93-114. Quinn, N. (1991). The cultural basis of metaphors. In J. W. Fernandez (Ed.), Beyond meta-phors: The theory of tropes in anthropology. Stanford: Stanford University press, 56-93. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1964 [1922]). The Andaman islanders. New York: The free press. Radden, G. (1998). The conceptualization of emotional causality by means of prepositional phrases. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisa-tion and expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 273-294. Rice, S. A. (1987). Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. Ann Arbor: UMI. ----- (1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Püta and R. Dirven (Eds.), The costrual of space in language and thought. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 136-156. Rosaldo, M. Z. (1983). The shame of headhunters and the autonomy of self. Ethos 11(3), 135-151. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/639969 Rosch, E. (1975a). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 7, 532-547. ----- (1978). Principles of Categorization. In: E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 27-48. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., and Boyes-Bream, P. (1976). Basic objects in matural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382-439. Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., and Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(4), 574-586. Sandra, D. and S. Rice (1995). Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user? Cognitive Linguistics 6(1), 89-130. Sauter, D. A., LeGuen, O., and Haun, D. B. M. (2011). Categorical perception of emotional facial expressions does not require lexical categories. Emotion 11(6), 1479-1483. doi: 10.1037/a0025336


Bibliography ׀ 180

Schlimm, M. R. (2008). From Fratricide to forgiveness: The ethics of anger in Genesis. A PhD dissertation. Duke University. ----- (2017). The central role of emotions in biblical theology, biblical ethics, and popular con-ceptions of the Bible. In S. Spencer (Ed.), Mixed feelings and vexed passions: Exploring emo-tions in biblical literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 43-59. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1w1vm30.6 Sharifian, F. (2005). Cultural conceptualisations in English words: A study of Aboriginal chil-dren in Perth. Language and Education 19(1), 74-88. doi: 10.1080/09500780508668805 ----- (2008). Conceptualization of del ‘heart-stomach’ in Persian. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter, 247-266 ----- (2011). Conceptualizations of schem ‘eye’ in Persian. In Z. A. Maalej and N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various labguages and cultures. Amsterdam/Phila-delphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 197-211. Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., and Niemeier, S. (2008). Culture and language: Looking for the “mind” inside the body. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and lan-guages. Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter, 3-23. Shweder, R. A., Munch, N. C., Mahapatra, M, and Park, L. (1997). The “Big Three” of moral-ity (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “Big Three” explanations of suffering. In A. Brandt and P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health. New York: Routledge, 119-169. Siahaan, P. (2008). Did he break your heart or your liver? A contrastive study on metaphorical concepts from the source domain ORGAN in English and Indonesian. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter, 45-74. Stiebert, J. (2002). The construction of shame in the Hebrew Bible: The prophetic contribution. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement series 346. London/New York: Shef-field Academic Press. Stiegenthaler, A. (2014). A survey of shame terminology in the Psalms. OT591 Independent Study in Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary. Stuart, D. (1987). Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books. Taylor, J. R. ( [1989] 2009). Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxfor University press. ----- (2012). The mental corpus: how language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, J. R. and Mbense, T. G. (1998). Red dogs and rotten mealies: How Zulus talk about anger. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisa-tion and expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 191-226.

Tissari, H. (2003). Lovescapes: Changes in prototypical senses and cognitive metaphors since 1500. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Tramutoli, R. (2015). ‘Love’ encoding in Swahili: A semantic description through a corpus-based analysis. Swahili Forum 22, 72-103. Trawick, M. (1990). Untouchability and the fear of death in Tamil song. In C. A. Lutz and L. Abu-Lughod (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 186-206. Tsunoda, (1981b). Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19(5-6), 389-438. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1981.19.5-6.389 ----- (1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2), 385-396. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700010318 Tayler, A. and Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spacial scenes, em-bodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Vanderhooft, D. S. (2018). ’AHABĀH: Philological observations on ’āhēb/’ahăbāh in the He-brew Bible. In M. Oeming (Ed.), Die Liebe Gottes im Alten Testament 55, Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte. Leipzig: Buchhandlung Heesen, 41–54. Vardi, R. (2015). ‘I’m dying on you’: Constructions of intensification in Hebrew expression of love/desire/adoration. Review of Cognitive linguistics 13(1), 28-58. doi: 10.1075/rcl.13.1.02var ----- (2015). Favour: Construction of affection in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew studies, 56, 49-69. doi: 10.1353/hbr.2015.0025 ----- (2017). “This silence doesn’t find favor in my eyes’: Cultural conceptuaization of xen ‘favor’ in Biblical and Israeli Hebrew. International Journal of Language and Culture 4(1), 99-119. doi:10.1075/ijolc.4.1.06var Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L. Andrews, M. and Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition 1(2), 219-247. doi:10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.011 Viljoen, A. and Ventner, P. M. (2013). An exploration of the symbolic world of Proverbs 10:1-15:33 with specific reference to ‘the fear of the lord’. HTS Theological Studies 69(1), 6 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v69i1.2008 Weinfeld, M. (1982). ‘You will find favour… In the sight of God and man’ (Proverbs 3:4): A history of an idea. In B. A. Levin and A. Malamat (Eds.). Harry M. Orlinsky volum of Eretz-Israel, vol. 16, 93-99. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society in corporation with Hebrew Union College / Jewish Institute of Religion. [Hebrew] Whorf, B. L. (1956). In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Bibliography 181 ׀

Schlimm, M. R. (2008). From Fratricide to forgiveness: The ethics of anger in Genesis. A PhD dissertation. Duke University. ----- (2017). The central role of emotions in biblical theology, biblical ethics, and popular con-ceptions of the Bible. In S. Spencer (Ed.), Mixed feelings and vexed passions: Exploring emo-tions in biblical literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 43-59. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1w1vm30.6 Sharifian, F. (2005). Cultural conceptualisations in English words: A study of Aboriginal chil-dren in Perth. Language and Education 19(1), 74-88. doi: 10.1080/09500780508668805 ----- (2008). Conceptualization of del ‘heart-stomach’ in Persian. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter, 247-266 ----- (2011). Conceptualizations of schem ‘eye’ in Persian. In Z. A. Maalej and N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various labguages and cultures. Amsterdam/Phila-delphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 197-211. Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., and Niemeier, S. (2008). Culture and language: Looking for the “mind” inside the body. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and lan-guages. Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter, 3-23. Shweder, R. A., Munch, N. C., Mahapatra, M, and Park, L. (1997). The “Big Three” of moral-ity (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “Big Three” explanations of suffering. In A. Brandt and P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health. New York: Routledge, 119-169. Siahaan, P. (2008). Did he break your heart or your liver? A contrastive study on metaphorical concepts from the source domain ORGAN in English and Indonesian. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, and S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter, 45-74. Stiebert, J. (2002). The construction of shame in the Hebrew Bible: The prophetic contribution. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement series 346. London/New York: Shef-field Academic Press. Stiegenthaler, A. (2014). A survey of shame terminology in the Psalms. OT591 Independent Study in Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary. Stuart, D. (1987). Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books. Taylor, J. R. ( [1989] 2009). Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxfor University press. ----- (2012). The mental corpus: how language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, J. R. and Mbense, T. G. (1998). Red dogs and rotten mealies: How Zulus talk about anger. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisa-tion and expression. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 191-226.

Tissari, H. (2003). Lovescapes: Changes in prototypical senses and cognitive metaphors since 1500. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Tramutoli, R. (2015). ‘Love’ encoding in Swahili: A semantic description through a corpus-based analysis. Swahili Forum 22, 72-103. Trawick, M. (1990). Untouchability and the fear of death in Tamil song. In C. A. Lutz and L. Abu-Lughod (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 186-206. Tsunoda, (1981b). Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19(5-6), 389-438. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1981.19.5-6.389 ----- (1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2), 385-396. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700010318 Tayler, A. and Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spacial scenes, em-bodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Vanderhooft, D. S. (2018). ’AHABĀH: Philological observations on ’āhēb/’ahăbāh in the He-brew Bible. In M. Oeming (Ed.), Die Liebe Gottes im Alten Testament 55, Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte. Leipzig: Buchhandlung Heesen, 41–54. Vardi, R. (2015). ‘I’m dying on you’: Constructions of intensification in Hebrew expression of love/desire/adoration. Review of Cognitive linguistics 13(1), 28-58. doi: 10.1075/rcl.13.1.02var ----- (2015). Favour: Construction of affection in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew studies, 56, 49-69. doi: 10.1353/hbr.2015.0025 ----- (2017). “This silence doesn’t find favor in my eyes’: Cultural conceptuaization of xen ‘favor’ in Biblical and Israeli Hebrew. International Journal of Language and Culture 4(1), 99-119. doi:10.1075/ijolc.4.1.06var Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L. Andrews, M. and Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition 1(2), 219-247. doi:10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.011 Viljoen, A. and Ventner, P. M. (2013). An exploration of the symbolic world of Proverbs 10:1-15:33 with specific reference to ‘the fear of the lord’. HTS Theological Studies 69(1), 6 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v69i1.2008 Weinfeld, M. (1982). ‘You will find favour… In the sight of God and man’ (Proverbs 3:4): A history of an idea. In B. A. Levin and A. Malamat (Eds.). Harry M. Orlinsky volum of Eretz-Israel, vol. 16, 93-99. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society in corporation with Hebrew Union College / Jewish Institute of Religion. [Hebrew] Whorf, B. L. (1956). In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Bibliography ׀ 182

Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and Universals Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

----- (2009). Language and metalanguage: Key issues in emotion research. Emotion Review 1(1), 3-14. doi:10.1177/1754073908097175

----- (2019). The biblical roots of English ‘love’: The concept of ‘love’ in historical and cross-linguistic perspective. International Journal of Language and Culture 6(2), 225-254.

https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.18006.wie

Wierzbicka, A. and Enfield, N. J. (2002). Introduction: The body in description of emotion. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.10.12.02enf2). -10(1 Pragmatics & Cognition

Wilce, J. M. (2009). Language and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilkowski, B. M., Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Carter, M. S., and Feltman, R. (2009). “Hot-headed” is more than an expression: The embodied representation of anger in terms of heat. Emotion 9(4), 464-477. doi:10.1037/a0015764

Wilson, L. (1995). The book of Job and the fear of God. Tyndale Bulletin 46(1), 59-79.

Van Wolde, E. J. (2003). Love and hatred in a multiracial society: The Dinah and Shechem story in Genesis 34 in the context of Genesis 28-35. In C. J. Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (Eds.), Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. London/New York: T & T Clark International, 435-449.

----- (2008). Sentiments as culturally constructed emotions: Anger and love in the Hebrew Bible. Biblical Interpretation 16, 1-24. doi:10.1163/156851508X247602

Zevit, Z. (2014). The textual and social embeddedness of Israelite family religion: Who were the players? Where were the stages? In R. Albertz, B. Alpert Nakhai, S. M. Olyan, and R. Schmitt (Eds.), Family and household religion: Toward a syntesis of Old Testament studies, archeology, epigraphy, and cultural studies. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 287-314.

Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., and Magnusson, U. (2012). Metaphor and subjective experience: A study of motion-emotion metaphors in English, Swedish, Bulgarian, and Thai. In Foolen, A., Lüdtke, U. M., Racine, T. P., and Zlatev, J. (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion & emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 423-450.

39‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew b’horpus of 252 instances of A c Appendix I.

קחצי־תא תבהא רשא ךדחי־תא ךנב־תא אנ־חק רמאיו‘He said: “take your son, your only one, Isaac”.’

Gen 2:2

הבהאיו השאל ול־יהתו הקבר־תא חקיו‘He took Rebecca, she became his wife, he loved her.’

Gen 24:67

ויפב דיצ־יכ ושע־תא קחצי בהאיו‘Isaac loved Esau because he ate game,’

Gen 25:28

בקעי־תא תבהא הקברו‘but Rebecca loved Jacob.’

Gen 25:28

יתבהא רשאכ םימעטמ יל־השעו‘And prepare for me delicacies food, as I love.’

Gen 27:4

בהא רשאכ ךיבאל םימעטמ םתא השעאו‘And I will prepare delicacies of them for your father, as he loves.’

Gen 27:9

ויבא בהא רשאכ םימעטמ ומא שעתו‘His mother prepared delicacies as his father loves.’

Gen 27:14

לחר־תא בקעי בהאיו‘Jacob loved Rachel.’

Gen 29:18

התא ותבהאב םידחא םימיכ ויניעב ויהיו‘They seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her.’

Gen 29:20

האלמ לחר־תא־םג בהאיו‘He loved Rachel more than Leah.’

Gen 29:30

ישא ינבהאי התע יכ יינעב הוהי האר־יכ‘For Yhwh noticed my agony; for now my husband will love me.’

Gen 29:32

קעי־תב הנידב ושפנ קבדתו ׃רענה בל־לע רבדיו a רענה־תא בהאיו ב ‘His soul cleaved to Dinah daughter of Jacob, he loved the girl, he spoke to her heart.’

Gen 34:3

נב־לכמ ףסוי־תא בהא לארשיו ול אוה םינקז־ןב־יכ וי‘Israel loved Joseph more than any of his sons, because he was the son of his old age.’ (ESV)

Gen 37:3

ותא ואנשיו ויחא־לכמ םהיבא בהא ותא־יכ ויחא ואריו‘His brothers saw that their father loves him more than any of his brothers, they hated him.’

Gen 37:4

ובהא ויבאו ומאל ודבל אוה רתויו‘He is the only one of his mother who remained and his father loves him.’

Gen 44:20

יתוצמ ירמשלו יבהאל םיפלאל דסח השעו‘And do good to thousands, to those who love me and to those who keep my

commandments.’

Ex 20:6

ינב־תאו יתשא־תא ינדא־תא יתבהא דבעה רמאי־םאו‘And if the slave would say: “I love my master, my wife, and my sons”…’

Ex 21:5

ךומכ ךערל תבהאו‘You shall love your fellow man as yourself.’

Lev 19:18

ךומכ ול תבהאו‘You shall love him as yourself.’

Lev 19:34

וירחא וערזב רחביו ךיתבא־תא בהא יכ תחתו‘And because he loved your fathers, he has chosen their offspring after them.’

Deut 4:37

יתוצמ ירמשלו יבהאל םיפלאל דסח השעו‘And do good to thousands, to those who love me and to those who keep my commandments.’

Deut 5:10

ךדאמ־לכבו ךשפנ־לכבו ךבבל־לכב ךיהלא הוהי תא תבהאו‘You shall love Yhwh your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.’

Deut 6:5

באל עבשנ רשא העבשה־תא ורמשמו םכתא הוהי תבהאמ יכ תיבמ ךדפיו הקזח דיב םכתא הוהי איצוה םכיתערפ דימ םידבע ׃םירצמ־ךלמ ה

‘But out of Yhwh’s love for you and his keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, Yhwh has taken you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from the house of slaves from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.’

Deut 7:8

39 For the sake of convenience, ’hb is translated as ‘love’ in all the occurrences.


Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and Universals Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

----- (2009). Language and metalanguage: Key issues in emotion research. Emotion Review 1(1), 3-14. doi:10.1177/1754073908097175

----- (2019). The biblical roots of English ‘love’: The concept of ‘love’ in historical and cross-linguistic perspective. International Journal of Language and Culture 6(2), 225-254.

https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.18006.wie

Wierzbicka, A. and Enfield, N. J. (2002). Introduction: The body in description of emotion. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.10.12.02enf2). -10(1 Pragmatics & Cognition

Wilce, J. M. (2009). Language and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilkowski, B. M., Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Carter, M. S., and Feltman, R. (2009). “Hot-headed” is more than an expression: The embodied representation of anger in terms of heat. Emotion 9(4), 464-477. doi:10.1037/a0015764

Wilson, L. (1995). The book of Job and the fear of God. Tyndale Bulletin 46(1), 59-79.

Van Wolde, E. J. (2003). Love and hatred in a multiracial society: The Dinah and Shechem story in Genesis 34 in the context of Genesis 28-35. In C. J. Exum and H. G. M. Williamson (Eds.), Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. London/New York: T & T Clark International, 435-449.

----- (2008). Sentiments as culturally constructed emotions: Anger and love in the Hebrew Bible. Biblical Interpretation 16, 1-24. doi:10.1163/156851508X247602

Zevit, Z. (2014). The textual and social embeddedness of Israelite family religion: Who were the players? Where were the stages? In R. Albertz, B. Alpert Nakhai, S. M. Olyan, and R. Schmitt (Eds.), Family and household religion: Toward a syntesis of Old Testament studies, archeology, epigraphy, and cultural studies. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 287-314.

Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., and Magnusson, U. (2012). Metaphor and subjective experience: A study of motion-emotion metaphors in English, Swedish, Bulgarian, and Thai. In Foolen, A., Lüdtke, U. M., Racine, T. P., and Zlatev, J. (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion & emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 423-450.

39‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew b’horpus of 252 instances of A c Appendix I.

קחצי־תא תבהא רשא ךדחי־תא ךנב־תא אנ־חק רמאיו‘He said: “take your son, your only one, Isaac”.’

Gen 2:2

הבהאיו השאל ול־יהתו הקבר־תא חקיו‘He took Rebecca, she became his wife, he loved her.’

Gen 24:67

ויפב דיצ־יכ ושע־תא קחצי בהאיו‘Isaac loved Esau because he ate game,’

Gen 25:28

בקעי־תא תבהא הקברו‘but Rebecca loved Jacob.’

Gen 25:28

יתבהא רשאכ םימעטמ יל־השעו‘And prepare for me delicacies food, as I love.’

Gen 27:4

בהא רשאכ ךיבאל םימעטמ םתא השעאו‘And I will prepare delicacies of them for your father, as he loves.’

Gen 27:9

ויבא בהא רשאכ םימעטמ ומא שעתו‘His mother prepared delicacies as his father loves.’

Gen 27:14

לחר־תא בקעי בהאיו‘Jacob loved Rachel.’

Gen 29:18

התא ותבהאב םידחא םימיכ ויניעב ויהיו‘They seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her.’

Gen 29:20

האלמ לחר־תא־םג בהאיו‘He loved Rachel more than Leah.’

Gen 29:30

ישא ינבהאי התע יכ יינעב הוהי האר־יכ‘For Yhwh noticed my agony; for now my husband will love me.’

Gen 29:32

קעי־תב הנידב ושפנ קבדתו ׃רענה בל־לע רבדיו a רענה־תא בהאיו ב ‘His soul cleaved to Dinah daughter of Jacob, he loved the girl, he spoke to her heart.’

Gen 34:3

נב־לכמ ףסוי־תא בהא לארשיו ול אוה םינקז־ןב־יכ וי‘Israel loved Joseph more than any of his sons, because he was the son of his old age.’ (ESV)

Gen 37:3

ותא ואנשיו ויחא־לכמ םהיבא בהא ותא־יכ ויחא ואריו‘His brothers saw that their father loves him more than any of his brothers, they hated him.’

Gen 37:4

ובהא ויבאו ומאל ודבל אוה רתויו‘He is the only one of his mother who remained and his father loves him.’

Gen 44:20

יתוצמ ירמשלו יבהאל םיפלאל דסח השעו‘And do good to thousands, to those who love me and to those who keep my

commandments.’

Ex 20:6

ינב־תאו יתשא־תא ינדא־תא יתבהא דבעה רמאי־םאו‘And if the slave would say: “I love my master, my wife, and my sons”…’

Ex 21:5

ךומכ ךערל תבהאו‘You shall love your fellow man as yourself.’

Lev 19:18

ךומכ ול תבהאו‘You shall love him as yourself.’

Lev 19:34

וירחא וערזב רחביו ךיתבא־תא בהא יכ תחתו‘And because he loved your fathers, he has chosen their offspring after them.’

Deut 4:37

יתוצמ ירמשלו יבהאל םיפלאל דסח השעו‘And do good to thousands, to those who love me and to those who keep my commandments.’

Deut 5:10

ךדאמ־לכבו ךשפנ־לכבו ךבבל־לכב ךיהלא הוהי תא תבהאו‘You shall love Yhwh your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.’

Deut 6:5

באל עבשנ רשא העבשה־תא ורמשמו םכתא הוהי תבהאמ יכ תיבמ ךדפיו הקזח דיב םכתא הוהי איצוה םכיתערפ דימ םידבע ׃םירצמ־ךלמ ה

‘But out of Yhwh’s love for you and his keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, Yhwh has taken you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from the house of slaves from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.’

Deut 7:8

39 For the sake of convenience, ’hb is translated as ‘love’ in all the occurrences.


Appendix I ׀ 184

׃רוד ףלאל ותוצמ ירמשלו ויבהאל דסחהו תירבה רמש ןמאנה לאה םיהלאה אוה ךיהלא הוהי־יכ תעדיו ‘You shall know that Yhwh your god is the faithful god, who keeps the covenant and the loving-kindness to those who love him and keep his commandments.’

Deut 7:9

ךברהו ךכרבו ךבהאו‘He will love you, will bless you, will multiply you.’

Deut 7:13

דבעלו ותא הבהאלו ויכרד־לכב תכלל ךיהלא הוהי־תא האריל־םא יכ ךמעמ לאש ךיהלא הוהי המ לארשי התעו ׃ךשפנ־לכבו ךבבל־לכב ךיהלא הוהי־תא

‘And now, Israel, what does Yhwh your god require of you, but to fear Yhwh your god, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, to work for Yhwh your god with all your heart and with all your soul.’

Deut 10:12

םתוא הבהאל הוהי קשח ךיתבאב קר‘Yhwh desired only your fathers for his love for them.’

Deut 10:15

הלמשו םחל ול תתל רג בהאו הנמלאו םותי טפשמ השע‘He does justice to the orphan and the widow, and loves the foreigner giving him bread and clothing.’

Deut 10:18

םירצמ ץראב םתייה םירג־יכ רגה־תא םתבהאו‘You shall love the foreigner, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.’

Deut 10:19

ךיהלא הוהי תא תבהאו‘You shall love Yhwh your god.’

Deut 11:1

יהו מש־םא ה םכבבל־לכב ודבעלו םכיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל םויה םכתא הוצמ יכנא רשא יתוצמ־לא ועמשת ע ׃םכשפנ־לכבו

‘And if you will obey my commandments that I command you today, to love Yhwh your god and to work for him with all your heart and with all your soul.’

Deut 11:13

מש־םא יכ זה הוצמה־לכ־תא ןורמשת ר תכלל םכיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל התשעל םכתא הוצמ יכנא רשא תא ׃וב־הקבדלו ויכרד־לכב

‘If you will keep all this commandment that I command you to do it, to love Yhwh your god, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave to him.’

Deut 11:22

םכשפנ־לכבו םכבבל־לכב םכיהלא הוהי־תא םיבהא םכשיה תעדל םכתא םכיהלא הוהי הסנמ יכ‘For Yhwh your god is testing you to know whether you love Yhwh your god with all your heart and with all your soul.’

Deut 13:4

׃ךמע ול בוט־יכ ךתיב־תאו ךבהא יכ ךמעמ אצא אל ךילא רמאי־יכ היהו ‘And if he will say to you: “I will not go out from you”, because he loves you and your house, because being with you is good for him.’

Deut 15:16

זה הוצמה־לכ־תא רמשת־יכ ־לכ ויכרדב תכללו ךיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל םויה ךוצמ יכנא רשא התשעל תא ׃הלאה שלשה לע םירע שלש דוע ךל תפסיו םימיה

‘If you keep all this commandment that I command you today, to love Yhwh your god and to always walk in his ways, then you will add three other cities than these three.’

Deut 19:9

האונש תחאהו הבוהא תחאה םישנ יתש שאל ןייהת־יכ‘If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other hated,’

Deut 21:15

׃האינשל רוכבה ןבה היהו האונשהו הבוהאה םינב ול־ודליו‘and they bore him sons, the loved one and the hated one, and the firstborn was the son of the hated one,’

Deut 21:15

יהו נב־תא וליחנה םויב ה האונשה־ןב ינפ־לע הבוהאה־ןב־תא רכבל לכוי אל ול היהי־רשא תא וי‘on the day when he assigns the inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of loved one as the firstborn instead of the son of the hated one.’

Deut 21:16

׃ךיהלא הוהי ךבהא יכ הכרבל הללקה־תא ךל ךיהלא הוהי ךפהיו‘Yhwh your god turned the curse into a blessing, because he loved you.’

Deut 23:6

׃ךייח ןעמל ךשפנ־לכבו ךבבל־לכב ךיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל ךערז בבל־תאו ךבבל־תא ךיהלא הוהי למו‘Yhwh your god circumcised your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love Yhwh your god with all your heart and with all your soul.’

Deut 30:6

משלו ויכרדב תכלל ךיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל םויה ךוצמ יכנא רשא תיברו תייחו ויטפשמו ויתקחו ויתוצמ ר ׃התשרל המש־אב התא־רשא ץראב ךיהלא הוהי ךכרבו

‘That I command you today to love Yhwh your god, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and statutes, you will live and multiply and Yhwh your god will bless you in the land that you come to take in possession.’

Deut 30:16

ךימי ךראו ךייח אוה יכ וב־הקבדלו ולקב עמשל ךיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל‘To love Yhwh your god, to obey him, and to cleave to him because he is your life and your life span.’

Deut 30:20

םכיהלא הוהי תא הבהאל הוהי־דבע השמ םכתא הוצ רשא הרותה תאו הוצמה־תא תושעל דאמ ורמש קר‘Only be sure to do the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of Yhwh commanded you, to love Yhwh your god and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave to him, and to work for him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Josh 22:5

םכיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל םכיתשפנל דאמ םתרמשנו‘You shall be very careful to love Yhwh your god.’

Josh 23:11

ותרבגב שמשה תאצכ ויבהאו הוהי ךיביא־לכ ודבאי ןכ‘All your enemies, Yhwh, will perish like this, but those who love him will be like the sun rising in his might.’

Judg 5:31

ינתבהא אלו ינתאנש־קר‘You only hate me, you do not love me.’

Judg 14:16

׃הלילד המשו קרש לחנב השא בהאיו ןכ־ירחא יהיו‘After this, he loved a woman in the Valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah.’

Judg 16:4

תו יתא ןיא ךבלו ךיתבהא רמאת ךיא וילא רמא‘She said to him: “how can you say ‘I love you’ while your heart is not with me?”.’

Judg 16:15

המחר רגס הוהיו בהא הנח־תא יכ‘For he loved Hannah and Yhwh had closed her womb.’

1Sam 1:5

םילכ אשנ ול יהיו דאמ והבהאיו וינפל דמעיו לואש־לא דוד אביו‘David came to Saul, stood in front of him, Saul loved him very much, and he became his armbearer.’

1Sam 16:21

ושפנכ ןתנוהי והבהאיו דוד שפנב הרשקנ ןתנוהי שפנו‘The Soul of Jonathan was knit to David’s soul, Jonathan loved him as his own soul.’

1Sam 18:1

ושפנכ ותא ותבהאב תירב דודו ןתנוהי תרכיו‘Jonathan made a covenant with David out of his love for him, as his own soul.’

1Sam 18:3

םהינפל אבו אצוי אוה־יכ דוד־תא בהא הדוהיו לארשי־לכו‘And all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came to stand for them.’

1Sam 18:16

דוד תא לואש־תב לכימ בהאתו‘Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David.’

1Sam 18:20

ךובהא וידבע־לכו ךלמה ךב ץפח הנה‘Behold, the king wants you and all his servants love you.’

1Sam 18:22

והתבהא לואש־תב לכימו דוד־םע הוהי יכ עדיו לואש אריו‘Saul saw and realised that Yhwh is with David and Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him.’

1Sam 18:28

ותא ותבהאב דוד־תא עיבשהל ןתנוהי ףסויו‘Jonathan kept letting David swear by his love for him.’

1Sam 20:17

ובהא ושפנ תבהא־יכ‘For he loved him as the love for his own soul.’

1Sam 20:17

ודרפנ אל םתומבו םהייחב םימיענהו םיבהאנה ןתנוהיו לואש‘Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the pleasant, in their lives and their death did not separate.’

2Sam 1:23

םישנ תבהאמ יל ךתבהא התאלפנ‘Your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing women’s love.’

2Sam 1:26

ובהא הוהיו המלש ומש־תא ארקתו ןב דלתו המע בכשיו הילא אביו ותשא עבש־תב תא דוד םחניו‘David comforted Bathsheba, his wife, he came to her, lay with her, she bore a son, named him Solomon, and Yhwh loved him.’

2Sam 12:24

דוד־ןב ןונמא הבהאיו רמת המשו הפי תוחא דוד־ןב םולשבאלו ןכ־ירחא יהיו‘then, Absalom, David’s son, had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon, David’s son, loved her.’

2Sam 13:1

בהא ינא יחא םלשבא תוחא רמת־תא ןונמא ול רמאיו‘Amnon said to him: “I love Tamar, the sister of Absalom, my brother”.’

2Sam 13:4

הבהא רשא הבהאמ האנש רשא האנשה הלודג יכ‘For the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he loved her.’

2Sam 13:15

ךיאנש־תא הבהאל‘To love those who hate you,’

2Sam 19:7

ךיבהא־תא אנשלו‘and to hate those who love you.’

2Sam 19:7

ויבא דוד תוקחב תכלל הוהי־תא המלש בהאיו‘Solomon loved Yhwh, walking in the statutes of his father David.’

1Kings 3:3


Appendix I 185 ׀

׃רוד ףלאל ותוצמ ירמשלו ויבהאל דסחהו תירבה רמש ןמאנה לאה םיהלאה אוה ךיהלא הוהי־יכ תעדיו ‘You shall know that Yhwh your god is the faithful god, who keeps the covenant and the loving-kindness to those who love him and keep his commandments.’

Deut 7:9

ךברהו ךכרבו ךבהאו‘He will love you, will bless you, will multiply you.’

Deut 7:13

דבעלו ותא הבהאלו ויכרד־לכב תכלל ךיהלא הוהי־תא האריל־םא יכ ךמעמ לאש ךיהלא הוהי המ לארשי התעו ׃ךשפנ־לכבו ךבבל־לכב ךיהלא הוהי־תא

‘And now, Israel, what does Yhwh your god require of you, but to fear Yhwh your god, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, to work for Yhwh your god with all your heart and with all your soul.’

Deut 10:12

םתוא הבהאל הוהי קשח ךיתבאב קר‘Yhwh desired only your fathers for his love for them.’

Deut 10:15

הלמשו םחל ול תתל רג בהאו הנמלאו םותי טפשמ השע‘He does justice to the orphan and the widow, and loves the foreigner giving him bread and clothing.’

Deut 10:18

םירצמ ץראב םתייה םירג־יכ רגה־תא םתבהאו‘You shall love the foreigner, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.’

Deut 10:19

ךיהלא הוהי תא תבהאו‘You shall love Yhwh your god.’

Deut 11:1

יהו מש־םא ה םכבבל־לכב ודבעלו םכיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל םויה םכתא הוצמ יכנא רשא יתוצמ־לא ועמשת ע ׃םכשפנ־לכבו

‘And if you will obey my commandments that I command you today, to love Yhwh your god and to work for him with all your heart and with all your soul.’

Deut 11:13

מש־םא יכ זה הוצמה־לכ־תא ןורמשת ר תכלל םכיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל התשעל םכתא הוצמ יכנא רשא תא ׃וב־הקבדלו ויכרד־לכב

‘If you will keep all this commandment that I command you to do it, to love Yhwh your god, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave to him.’

Deut 11:22

םכשפנ־לכבו םכבבל־לכב םכיהלא הוהי־תא םיבהא םכשיה תעדל םכתא םכיהלא הוהי הסנמ יכ‘For Yhwh your god is testing you to know whether you love Yhwh your god with all your heart and with all your soul.’

Deut 13:4

׃ךמע ול בוט־יכ ךתיב־תאו ךבהא יכ ךמעמ אצא אל ךילא רמאי־יכ היהו ‘And if he will say to you: “I will not go out from you”, because he loves you and your house, because being with you is good for him.’

Deut 15:16

זה הוצמה־לכ־תא רמשת־יכ ־לכ ויכרדב תכללו ךיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל םויה ךוצמ יכנא רשא התשעל תא ׃הלאה שלשה לע םירע שלש דוע ךל תפסיו םימיה

‘If you keep all this commandment that I command you today, to love Yhwh your god and to always walk in his ways, then you will add three other cities than these three.’

Deut 19:9

האונש תחאהו הבוהא תחאה םישנ יתש שאל ןייהת־יכ‘If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other hated,’

Deut 21:15

׃האינשל רוכבה ןבה היהו האונשהו הבוהאה םינב ול־ודליו‘and they bore him sons, the loved one and the hated one, and the firstborn was the son of the hated one,’

Deut 21:15

יהו נב־תא וליחנה םויב ה האונשה־ןב ינפ־לע הבוהאה־ןב־תא רכבל לכוי אל ול היהי־רשא תא וי‘on the day when he assigns the inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of loved one as the firstborn instead of the son of the hated one.’

Deut 21:16

׃ךיהלא הוהי ךבהא יכ הכרבל הללקה־תא ךל ךיהלא הוהי ךפהיו‘Yhwh your god turned the curse into a blessing, because he loved you.’

Deut 23:6

׃ךייח ןעמל ךשפנ־לכבו ךבבל־לכב ךיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל ךערז בבל־תאו ךבבל־תא ךיהלא הוהי למו‘Yhwh your god circumcised your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love Yhwh your god with all your heart and with all your soul.’

Deut 30:6

משלו ויכרדב תכלל ךיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל םויה ךוצמ יכנא רשא תיברו תייחו ויטפשמו ויתקחו ויתוצמ ר ׃התשרל המש־אב התא־רשא ץראב ךיהלא הוהי ךכרבו

‘That I command you today to love Yhwh your god, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and statutes, you will live and multiply and Yhwh your god will bless you in the land that you come to take in possession.’

Deut 30:16

ךימי ךראו ךייח אוה יכ וב־הקבדלו ולקב עמשל ךיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל‘To love Yhwh your god, to obey him, and to cleave to him because he is your life and your life span.’

Deut 30:20

םכיהלא הוהי תא הבהאל הוהי־דבע השמ םכתא הוצ רשא הרותה תאו הוצמה־תא תושעל דאמ ורמש קר‘Only be sure to do the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of Yhwh commanded you, to love Yhwh your god and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave to him, and to work for him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Josh 22:5

םכיהלא הוהי־תא הבהאל םכיתשפנל דאמ םתרמשנו‘You shall be very careful to love Yhwh your god.’

Josh 23:11

ותרבגב שמשה תאצכ ויבהאו הוהי ךיביא־לכ ודבאי ןכ‘All your enemies, Yhwh, will perish like this, but those who love him will be like the sun rising in his might.’

Judg 5:31

ינתבהא אלו ינתאנש־קר‘You only hate me, you do not love me.’

Judg 14:16

׃הלילד המשו קרש לחנב השא בהאיו ןכ־ירחא יהיו‘After this, he loved a woman in the Valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah.’

Judg 16:4

תו יתא ןיא ךבלו ךיתבהא רמאת ךיא וילא רמא‘She said to him: “how can you say ‘I love you’ while your heart is not with me?”.’

Judg 16:15

המחר רגס הוהיו בהא הנח־תא יכ‘For he loved Hannah and Yhwh had closed her womb.’

1Sam 1:5

םילכ אשנ ול יהיו דאמ והבהאיו וינפל דמעיו לואש־לא דוד אביו‘David came to Saul, stood in front of him, Saul loved him very much, and he became his armbearer.’

1Sam 16:21

ושפנכ ןתנוהי והבהאיו דוד שפנב הרשקנ ןתנוהי שפנו‘The Soul of Jonathan was knit to David’s soul, Jonathan loved him as his own soul.’

1Sam 18:1

ושפנכ ותא ותבהאב תירב דודו ןתנוהי תרכיו‘Jonathan made a covenant with David out of his love for him, as his own soul.’

1Sam 18:3

םהינפל אבו אצוי אוה־יכ דוד־תא בהא הדוהיו לארשי־לכו‘And all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came to stand for them.’

1Sam 18:16

דוד תא לואש־תב לכימ בהאתו‘Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David.’

1Sam 18:20

ךובהא וידבע־לכו ךלמה ךב ץפח הנה‘Behold, the king wants you and all his servants love you.’

1Sam 18:22

והתבהא לואש־תב לכימו דוד־םע הוהי יכ עדיו לואש אריו‘Saul saw and realised that Yhwh is with David and Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him.’

1Sam 18:28

ותא ותבהאב דוד־תא עיבשהל ןתנוהי ףסויו‘Jonathan kept letting David swear by his love for him.’

1Sam 20:17

ובהא ושפנ תבהא־יכ‘For he loved him as the love for his own soul.’

1Sam 20:17

ודרפנ אל םתומבו םהייחב םימיענהו םיבהאנה ןתנוהיו לואש‘Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the pleasant, in their lives and their death did not separate.’

2Sam 1:23

םישנ תבהאמ יל ךתבהא התאלפנ‘Your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing women’s love.’

2Sam 1:26

ובהא הוהיו המלש ומש־תא ארקתו ןב דלתו המע בכשיו הילא אביו ותשא עבש־תב תא דוד םחניו‘David comforted Bathsheba, his wife, he came to her, lay with her, she bore a son, named him Solomon, and Yhwh loved him.’

2Sam 12:24

דוד־ןב ןונמא הבהאיו רמת המשו הפי תוחא דוד־ןב םולשבאלו ןכ־ירחא יהיו‘then, Absalom, David’s son, had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon, David’s son, loved her.’

2Sam 13:1

בהא ינא יחא םלשבא תוחא רמת־תא ןונמא ול רמאיו‘Amnon said to him: “I love Tamar, the sister of Absalom, my brother”.’

2Sam 13:4

הבהא רשא הבהאמ האנש רשא האנשה הלודג יכ‘For the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he loved her.’

2Sam 13:15

ךיאנש־תא הבהאל‘To love those who hate you,’

2Sam 19:7

ךיבהא־תא אנשלו‘and to hate those who love you.’

2Sam 19:7

ויבא דוד תוקחב תכלל הוהי־תא המלש בהאיו‘Solomon loved Yhwh, walking in the statutes of his father David.’

1Kings 3:3


Appendix I ׀ 186

׃םימיה־לכ דודל םריח היה בהא יכ‘For Hiram always loved David.’

1Kings 5:15

םלעל לארשי־תא הוהי תבהאב‘With Yhwh’s love for Israel forever.’

1Kings 10:9

תובר תוירכנ םישנ בהא המלש ךלמהו‘King Solomon loved many foreign women.’

1Kings 11:1

הבהאל המלש קבד םהב‘Solomon cleaved to them with love.’

1Kings 11:2

םינמלש ףדרו דחש בהא ולכ םיבנג ירבחו םיררס ךירש‘Your chiefs are rebels and befriend with thieves, they all love bribe and run after rewards.’

Is 1:23

יבהא םהרבא ערז ךתרחב רשא בקעי ידבע לארשי התאו‘And you, Israel, my servant Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, who loved me.’

Is 41:8

ךתבהא ינאו תדבכנ יניעב תרקי רשאמ‘Because you are precious in my eyes, honored, and I love you.’

Is 43:3

ובהא הוהי הלא־תא דיגה םהב ימ‘Who among them has said these things, Yhwh loves him.’

Is 48:14

םידבעל ול תויהל הוהי םש־תא הבהאלו ותרשל הוהי־לע םיולנה רכנה ינבו‘And the foreigners who join Yhwh to serve him and to love the name of Yhwh to be his servants.’

Is 56:6

בנל ולכוי אל םימלא םיבלכ םלכ ועדי אל םלכ םירוע ויפצ ש םיזה ח ׃םונל יבהא םיבכ ‘His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant, all mute dogs that cannot bark, dreaming, laying down, loving to sleep.’

Is 56:10

םבכשמ תבהא םהמ ךל תרכתו‘You made a covenant with them, you loved their bed.’

Is 57:8

הלועב לזג אנש טפשמ בהא הוהי ינא יכ‘For I, Yhwh, love justice, hate plunder and iniquity.’

Is 61:8

םלאג אוה ותלמחבו ותבהאב‘With his love and compassion he redeemed them.’

Is 63:9

היבהא־לכ הב וליגו םלשורי־תא וחמש‘Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad in her you who love her.’

Is 66:10

ךיתלולכ תבהא ךירוענ דסח ךל יתרכז‘I remember your youth’s kindness your love as bride.’

Jer 2:2

ךלא םהירחאו םירז יתבהא־יכ אול שאונ רמאתו‘You said: “no hopelessness, as I love foreigners and will go after them”.’

Jer 2:25

הבהא שקבל ךכרד יבטית־המ‘How well you find your way to seek love.’

Jer 2:33

ןכ ובהא ימעו םהידי־לע ודרי םינהכהו רקשב־ואבנ םיאיבנה‘The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests rule with their means, but my people love it in this way.’

Jer 5:31

םובהא רשא םימשה אבצ לכלו חרילו שמשל םוחטשו‘They shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the army of the heavan, which they love.’

Jer 8:2

עונל ובהא ןכ הזה םעל הוהי רמא־הכ‘So said Yhwh of the people, they have loved to wander”.’

Jer 14:10

ךיבהא לכלו ךל רוגמל ךנתנ יננה‘I will make you a terror to yourself and to all those who love you.’

Jer 20:4

ךיבהא־לכו התא רבקת םשו‘And there you will be barried, you and all those who love you.’

Jer 20:6

ךיבהאמ לכ ורבשנ יכ‘For all your lovers are destroyed.’

Jer 22:20

וכלי יבשב ךיבהאמו‘And your lovers shall go into captivity.’

Jer 22:22

ךוחכש ךיבהאמ־לכ‘All your lovers have forgotten you.’

Jer 30:14

ךיתבהא םלוע תבהאו‘And I have loved you with everlasting love.’

Jer 31:3

ךיבהאמ־לכל ךינדנ־תא תתנ תאו‘And you gave your love gift to all your lovers.’

Ezek 16:33

ךיתונזתב ךתורע הלגתו‘Your nakedness was uncovered.’

Ezek 16:36

םהילע תברע רשא ךיבהאמ־לכ־תא ץבקמ יננה‘I will gather all you lovers with whom you had pleasure,’

Ezek 16:37

תאנש רשא־לכ לע תבהא רשא־לכ תאו‘And all those you love and all those hate.’

Ezek 16:37

היבהאמ־לע בגעתו‘She lusted after her lovers.’

Ezek 23:5

היבהאמ־דיב היתתנ ןכל‘Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers.’

Ezek 23:9

ךילע ךיבהאמ־תא ריעמ יננה‘I will raise up your lovers against you.’

Ezek 23:22

יבהאמ ירחא הכלא הרמא יכ‘For she said: “I will go after my lovers”.’

Hos 2:7

םתא גישת־אלו היבהאמ־תא הפדרו‘She shall pursue her lovers, but shall not overtake them.’

Hos 2:9

היבהאמ יניעל התלבנ־תא הלגא התעו‘And now I uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers,’

Hos 2:12

יבהאמ יל־ונתנ רשא‘Which my lovers game to me.’

Hos 2:14

היבהאמ ירחא ךלתו‘She went after her lovers,’

Hos 2:15

ער תבהא השא־בהא ךל‘Go love a woman, beloved by another man, and an adulteress,’

Hos 3:1

לארשי ינב־תא הוהי תבהאכ‘like Yhwh’s love for the sons of Israel,’

Hos 3:1

םיבנע ישישא יבהאו‘and they love raisin cakes.’

Hos 3:1

היניגמ ןולק ובה ובהא‘Her guards indeed love shame.’

Hos 4:18

םיבהא ונתה םירפא‘Ephraim have given love gifts.’

Hos 8:9

ןגד תונרג־לכ לע ןנתא תבהא‘You have loved whore wages at any threshing-floor.’

Hos 9:1

בל ורזניו רועפ־לעב ואב המה ׃םבהאכ םיצוקש ויהיו תש‘They came to Baal-peor, consecrated themselves to shame and turned into abomination, like that which they loved.’

Hos 9:10

םתבהא ףסוא אל‘I will not love them any more.’

Hos 9:15

הראוצ בוט־לע יתרבע ינאו שודל יתבהא הדמלמ הלגע םירפאו‘And Ephraim, a trained heifer, loved to thresh, and I passed over upon the goodness of her neck.’

Hos 10:11

והבהאו לארשי רענ יכ‘When israel was a child, I loved him.’

Hos 11:1

הבהא תותבעב םכשמא םדא ילבחב‘I drew them with human, with bands of love,’

Hos 11:4

נכ שעל המרמ ינזאמ ודיב ןע ׃בהא ק‘A merchandiser, balances of deceit in his hand, loves to oppress.’

Hos 12:8

הבדנ םבהא םתבושמ אפרא‘I will heal their apostasy, I will love them willingly.’

Hos 14:5

לארשי ינב םתבהא ןכ יכ‘For you love this, sons of Israel.’

Amos 4:5

בוט ובהאו ער־ואנש‘Hate evil and love the good.’

Amos 5:15

הער יבהאו בוט יאנש‘Those who hate the good and love evil.’

Mic 3:2


Appendix I 187 ׀

׃םימיה־לכ דודל םריח היה בהא יכ‘For Hiram always loved David.’

1Kings 5:15

םלעל לארשי־תא הוהי תבהאב‘With Yhwh’s love for Israel forever.’

1Kings 10:9

תובר תוירכנ םישנ בהא המלש ךלמהו‘King Solomon loved many foreign women.’

1Kings 11:1

הבהאל המלש קבד םהב‘Solomon cleaved to them with love.’

1Kings 11:2

םינמלש ףדרו דחש בהא ולכ םיבנג ירבחו םיררס ךירש‘Your chiefs are rebels and befriend with thieves, they all love bribe and run after rewards.’

Is 1:23

יבהא םהרבא ערז ךתרחב רשא בקעי ידבע לארשי התאו‘And you, Israel, my servant Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, who loved me.’

Is 41:8

ךתבהא ינאו תדבכנ יניעב תרקי רשאמ‘Because you are precious in my eyes, honored, and I love you.’

Is 43:3

ובהא הוהי הלא־תא דיגה םהב ימ‘Who among them has said these things, Yhwh loves him.’

Is 48:14

םידבעל ול תויהל הוהי םש־תא הבהאלו ותרשל הוהי־לע םיולנה רכנה ינבו‘And the foreigners who join Yhwh to serve him and to love the name of Yhwh to be his servants.’

Is 56:6

בנל ולכוי אל םימלא םיבלכ םלכ ועדי אל םלכ םירוע ויפצ ש םיזה ח ׃םונל יבהא םיבכ ‘His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant, all mute dogs that cannot bark, dreaming, laying down, loving to sleep.’

Is 56:10

םבכשמ תבהא םהמ ךל תרכתו‘You made a covenant with them, you loved their bed.’

Is 57:8

הלועב לזג אנש טפשמ בהא הוהי ינא יכ‘For I, Yhwh, love justice, hate plunder and iniquity.’

Is 61:8

םלאג אוה ותלמחבו ותבהאב‘With his love and compassion he redeemed them.’

Is 63:9

היבהא־לכ הב וליגו םלשורי־תא וחמש‘Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad in her you who love her.’

Is 66:10

ךיתלולכ תבהא ךירוענ דסח ךל יתרכז‘I remember your youth’s kindness your love as bride.’

Jer 2:2

ךלא םהירחאו םירז יתבהא־יכ אול שאונ רמאתו‘You said: “no hopelessness, as I love foreigners and will go after them”.’

Jer 2:25

הבהא שקבל ךכרד יבטית־המ‘How well you find your way to seek love.’

Jer 2:33

ןכ ובהא ימעו םהידי־לע ודרי םינהכהו רקשב־ואבנ םיאיבנה‘The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests rule with their means, but my people love it in this way.’

Jer 5:31

םובהא רשא םימשה אבצ לכלו חרילו שמשל םוחטשו‘They shall spread them before the sun and the moon and all the army of the heavan, which they love.’

Jer 8:2

עונל ובהא ןכ הזה םעל הוהי רמא־הכ‘So said Yhwh of the people, they have loved to wander”.’

Jer 14:10

ךיבהא לכלו ךל רוגמל ךנתנ יננה‘I will make you a terror to yourself and to all those who love you.’

Jer 20:4

ךיבהא־לכו התא רבקת םשו‘And there you will be barried, you and all those who love you.’

Jer 20:6

ךיבהאמ לכ ורבשנ יכ‘For all your lovers are destroyed.’

Jer 22:20

וכלי יבשב ךיבהאמו‘And your lovers shall go into captivity.’

Jer 22:22

ךוחכש ךיבהאמ־לכ‘All your lovers have forgotten you.’

Jer 30:14

ךיתבהא םלוע תבהאו‘And I have loved you with everlasting love.’

Jer 31:3

ךיבהאמ־לכל ךינדנ־תא תתנ תאו‘And you gave your love gift to all your lovers.’

Ezek 16:33

ךיתונזתב ךתורע הלגתו‘Your nakedness was uncovered.’

Ezek 16:36

םהילע תברע רשא ךיבהאמ־לכ־תא ץבקמ יננה‘I will gather all you lovers with whom you had pleasure,’

Ezek 16:37

תאנש רשא־לכ לע תבהא רשא־לכ תאו‘And all those you love and all those hate.’

Ezek 16:37

היבהאמ־לע בגעתו‘She lusted after her lovers.’

Ezek 23:5

היבהאמ־דיב היתתנ ןכל‘Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers.’

Ezek 23:9

ךילע ךיבהאמ־תא ריעמ יננה‘I will raise up your lovers against you.’

Ezek 23:22

יבהאמ ירחא הכלא הרמא יכ‘For she said: “I will go after my lovers”.’

Hos 2:7

םתא גישת־אלו היבהאמ־תא הפדרו‘She shall pursue her lovers, but shall not overtake them.’

Hos 2:9

היבהאמ יניעל התלבנ־תא הלגא התעו‘And now I uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers,’

Hos 2:12

יבהאמ יל־ונתנ רשא‘Which my lovers game to me.’

Hos 2:14

היבהאמ ירחא ךלתו‘She went after her lovers,’

Hos 2:15

ער תבהא השא־בהא ךל‘Go love a woman, beloved by another man, and an adulteress,’

Hos 3:1

לארשי ינב־תא הוהי תבהאכ‘like Yhwh’s love for the sons of Israel,’

Hos 3:1

םיבנע ישישא יבהאו‘and they love raisin cakes.’

Hos 3:1

היניגמ ןולק ובה ובהא‘Her guards indeed love shame.’

Hos 4:18

םיבהא ונתה םירפא‘Ephraim have given love gifts.’

Hos 8:9

ןגד תונרג־לכ לע ןנתא תבהא‘You have loved whore wages at any threshing-floor.’

Hos 9:1

בל ורזניו רועפ־לעב ואב המה ׃םבהאכ םיצוקש ויהיו תש‘They came to Baal-peor, consecrated themselves to shame and turned into abomination, like that which they loved.’

Hos 9:10

םתבהא ףסוא אל‘I will not love them any more.’

Hos 9:15

הראוצ בוט־לע יתרבע ינאו שודל יתבהא הדמלמ הלגע םירפאו‘And Ephraim, a trained heifer, loved to thresh, and I passed over upon the goodness of her neck.’

Hos 10:11

והבהאו לארשי רענ יכ‘When israel was a child, I loved him.’

Hos 11:1

הבהא תותבעב םכשמא םדא ילבחב‘I drew them with human, with bands of love,’

Hos 11:4

נכ שעל המרמ ינזאמ ודיב ןע ׃בהא ק‘A merchandiser, balances of deceit in his hand, loves to oppress.’

Hos 12:8

הבדנ םבהא םתבושמ אפרא‘I will heal their apostasy, I will love them willingly.’

Hos 14:5

לארשי ינב םתבהא ןכ יכ‘For you love this, sons of Israel.’

Amos 4:5

בוט ובהאו ער־ואנש‘Hate evil and love the good.’

Amos 5:15

הער יבהאו בוט יאנש‘Those who hate the good and love evil.’

Mic 3:2


Appendix I ׀ 188

׃ךיהלא־םע תכל ענצהו דסח תבהאו טפשמ תושע־םא יכ ךממ שרוד הוהי־המו בוט־המ םדא ךל דיגה‘He has told you, man, what is good, and what Yhwh requires of you: to judge justly, to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your god.’

Mic 6:8

ותבהאב שירחי‘He will be silent in his love.’

Zeph 3:17

ובהאת־לא רקש תעבשו‘And do not love false oath’

Zech 8:17

׃ובהא םולשהו תמאהו‘And you shall love truth and peace.’

Zech 8:19

׃יבהאמ תיב יתיכה רשא רמאו‘And he said: “I was beaten in the house of my friends”.’

Zech 13:6

הוהי רמא םכתא יתבהא“I have loved you”, said Yhwh,

Mal 1:2

ונתבהא המב םתרמאו‘And you said: “why have you loved us?”,’

Mal 1:2

בקעי־תא בהאו‘I loved Jacob.’

Mal 1:2

ק הדוהי ללח יכ בהא רשא הוהי שד‘For Judah has profaned the holiness of Yhwh, which he loves.’

Mal 2:11

׃הלס בזכ ושקבת קיר ןובהאת המלכל ידובכ המ־דע שיא ינב‘Sons of men, how long will my honour be turned into disgrace, (how long) will you keep loving vanity, seeking falsity?’

Ps 4:3

ךמש יבהא ךב וצלעיו‘And those who love your may exult in you.’

Ps 5:12

ושפנ האנש סמח בהאו עשרו‘But his soul hates the wicked and he who loves violence.’

Ps 11:5

י קידצ־יכ בהא תוקדצ הוה‘For Yhwh is righteous, he loves righteousness.’

Ps 11:7

ךתיב ןועמ יתבהא‘I love the habitation of your house.’

Ps 26:8

וידיסח־לכ הוהי־תא ובהא‘Love Yhwh, all his righteous devotees!’

Ps 31:24

טפשמו הקדצ בהא‘He loves righteousness and justice.’

Ps 33:5

בוט תוארל םימי בהא םייח ץפחה שיאה־ימ‘What man is he that desires life and loves the days to see the good?’

Ps 34:13

טפשמ בהא הוהי יכ‘For Yhwh loves justice.’

Ps 37:28

ודמעי יעגנ דגנמ יערו יבהא‘Those who love me keep away from my lesion.’

Ps 38:12

ךתעושת יבהא הוהי לדגי דימת ורמאי‘Those who love your salvation will always say: “great is Yhwh”.’

Ps 40:17

עשר אנשתו קדצ תבהא‘You have loved rightousness and hated evil.’

Ps 45:8

בהא־רשא בקעי ןואג תא ונתלחנ־תא ונל־רחבי‘He choses our inheritance for us, the pride of Jacob, whom he loved.’

Ps 47:5

קדצ רבדמ רקש בוטמ ער תבהא‘You love evil more than good, lying more than to speak righteousness.’

Ps 52:5

המרמ ןושל עלב־ירבד־לכ תבהא‘You love all words of deception, deceitful tongue.’

Ps 52:6

הב־ונכשי ומש יבהאו‘And those who love his name shall dwell in it.’

Ps 69:37

ךתעושי יבהא םיהלא לדגי דימת ורמאיו‘And those who love your salvation will always say: “great is Yhwh”.’

Ps 70:5

בהא רשא ןויצ רה־תא הדוהי טבש־תא רחביו‘He has chosen the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves.’

Ps 78:68

בקעי תונכשמ לכמ ןויצ ירעש הוהי בהא‘Yhwh loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.’

Ps 87:2

ערו בהא ינממ תקחרה‘You have taken the loving one and the friend far from me.’

Ps 88:19

ער ואנש הוהי יבהא‘You who love Yhwh, hate evil!’

Ps 97:10

בהא טפשמ ךלמ זעו‘And the king’s strength loves justice.’

Ps 99:4

ינונטשי יתבהא־תחת‘In exchange for my love they hate me.’

Ps 109:4

יתבהא תחת האנשו הבוט תחת הער ילע ומשיו‘The gave me evil for my good and hatred for my love.’

Ps 109:5

והאובתו הללק בהאיו‘He loved curse and it came upon him.’

Ps 109:17

ינונחת ילוק־תא הוהי עמשי־יכ יתבהא‘I love that Yhwh has heard my voice, my supplications.’

Ps 116:1

יתבהא רשא ךיתוצמב עשעתשאו‘And I will delight my self in your commandments, which I love.’

Ps 119:47

יתבהא רשא ךיתוצמ־לא יפכ־אשאו‘And I will raise up my hands toward your commandments, which I love.’

Ps 119:48

ךתרות יתבהא־המ‘How I love your law!’

Ps 119:97

׃יתבהא ךתרותו‘But I love your law.’

Ps 119:113

ךיתדע יתבהא ןכל‘Therefore I love your testimonies.’

Ps 119:119

זפמו בהזמ ךיתוצמ יתבהא ןכ־לע‘Therefore I love your commandments more than gold and fine gold.’

Ps 119:127

ךמש יבהאל טפשמכ יננחו ילא־הנפ‘Turn to me and have mercy upon me, as justice is done with those who love your name.’

Ps 119:132

אמ ךתרמא הפורצ ׃הבהא ךדבעו ד‘Your word is pure, and your servant loves it.’

Ps 119:140

י יתבהא ךידוקפ־יכ האר הוה‘Look, I love your precepts, Yhwh!’

Ps 119:159

יתבהא ךתרותו הבעתאו יתאנש רקש‘I hate and abhor falsehood, but your law I love.’

Ps 119:163

ר םולש ךתרות יבהאל ב‘Those who love your law have much peace.’

Ps 119:165

נ הרמש אמ םבהאו ךיתדע ישפ ׃ד‘My soul keep your testimonies, and I love them very much.’

Ps 119:167

ךיבהא וילשי‘Those who love you shall have peace.’

Ps 122:6

ויבהא־לכ־תא הוהי רמוש‘Yhwh keeps all those who love him.’

Ps 145:20

םיקדצ בהא הוהי‘Yhwh loves the righteous.’

Ps 146:8

יתפ ובהאת םיתפ יתמ־דע‘How long, fools, you will love foolishness?’

Prov 1:22

חיכוי הוהי בהאי רשא תא יכ‘For Yhwh reproves those who love him.’

Prov 3:12

ךירצתו היבהא‘Love it and it will guard you.’

Prov 4:6

תע־לכב ךורי הידד ןח־תלעיו םיבהא תליא‘A lovely hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts saturate you at all times;’

Prov 5:19

דימת הגשת התבהאב‘Be always passionately devoted to her love.’

Prov 5:19

םיבהאב הסלעתנ‘Let us delight ourselves with love.’

Prov 7:18

בהא היבהא ינא‘I love those who love me.’

Prov 8:17


Appendix I 189 ׀

׃ךיהלא־םע תכל ענצהו דסח תבהאו טפשמ תושע־םא יכ ךממ שרוד הוהי־המו בוט־המ םדא ךל דיגה‘He has told you, man, what is good, and what Yhwh requires of you: to judge justly, to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your god.’

Mic 6:8

ותבהאב שירחי‘He will be silent in his love.’

Zeph 3:17

ובהאת־לא רקש תעבשו‘And do not love false oath’

Zech 8:17

׃ובהא םולשהו תמאהו‘And you shall love truth and peace.’

Zech 8:19

׃יבהאמ תיב יתיכה רשא רמאו‘And he said: “I was beaten in the house of my friends”.’

Zech 13:6

הוהי רמא םכתא יתבהא“I have loved you”, said Yhwh,

Mal 1:2

ונתבהא המב םתרמאו‘And you said: “why have you loved us?”,’

Mal 1:2

בקעי־תא בהאו‘I loved Jacob.’

Mal 1:2

ק הדוהי ללח יכ בהא רשא הוהי שד‘For Judah has profaned the holiness of Yhwh, which he loves.’

Mal 2:11

׃הלס בזכ ושקבת קיר ןובהאת המלכל ידובכ המ־דע שיא ינב‘Sons of men, how long will my honour be turned into disgrace, (how long) will you keep loving vanity, seeking falsity?’

Ps 4:3

ךמש יבהא ךב וצלעיו‘And those who love your may exult in you.’

Ps 5:12

ושפנ האנש סמח בהאו עשרו‘But his soul hates the wicked and he who loves violence.’

Ps 11:5

י קידצ־יכ בהא תוקדצ הוה‘For Yhwh is righteous, he loves righteousness.’

Ps 11:7

ךתיב ןועמ יתבהא‘I love the habitation of your house.’

Ps 26:8

וידיסח־לכ הוהי־תא ובהא‘Love Yhwh, all his righteous devotees!’

Ps 31:24

טפשמו הקדצ בהא‘He loves righteousness and justice.’

Ps 33:5

בוט תוארל םימי בהא םייח ץפחה שיאה־ימ‘What man is he that desires life and loves the days to see the good?’

Ps 34:13

טפשמ בהא הוהי יכ‘For Yhwh loves justice.’

Ps 37:28

ודמעי יעגנ דגנמ יערו יבהא‘Those who love me keep away from my lesion.’

Ps 38:12

ךתעושת יבהא הוהי לדגי דימת ורמאי‘Those who love your salvation will always say: “great is Yhwh”.’

Ps 40:17

עשר אנשתו קדצ תבהא‘You have loved rightousness and hated evil.’

Ps 45:8

בהא־רשא בקעי ןואג תא ונתלחנ־תא ונל־רחבי‘He choses our inheritance for us, the pride of Jacob, whom he loved.’

Ps 47:5

קדצ רבדמ רקש בוטמ ער תבהא‘You love evil more than good, lying more than to speak righteousness.’

Ps 52:5

המרמ ןושל עלב־ירבד־לכ תבהא‘You love all words of deception, deceitful tongue.’

Ps 52:6

הב־ונכשי ומש יבהאו‘And those who love his name shall dwell in it.’

Ps 69:37

ךתעושי יבהא םיהלא לדגי דימת ורמאיו‘And those who love your salvation will always say: “great is Yhwh”.’

Ps 70:5

בהא רשא ןויצ רה־תא הדוהי טבש־תא רחביו‘He has chosen the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves.’

Ps 78:68

בקעי תונכשמ לכמ ןויצ ירעש הוהי בהא‘Yhwh loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.’

Ps 87:2

ערו בהא ינממ תקחרה‘You have taken the loving one and the friend far from me.’

Ps 88:19

ער ואנש הוהי יבהא‘You who love Yhwh, hate evil!’

Ps 97:10

בהא טפשמ ךלמ זעו‘And the king’s strength loves justice.’

Ps 99:4

ינונטשי יתבהא־תחת‘In exchange for my love they hate me.’

Ps 109:4

יתבהא תחת האנשו הבוט תחת הער ילע ומשיו‘The gave me evil for my good and hatred for my love.’

Ps 109:5

והאובתו הללק בהאיו‘He loved curse and it came upon him.’

Ps 109:17

ינונחת ילוק־תא הוהי עמשי־יכ יתבהא‘I love that Yhwh has heard my voice, my supplications.’

Ps 116:1

יתבהא רשא ךיתוצמב עשעתשאו‘And I will delight my self in your commandments, which I love.’

Ps 119:47

יתבהא רשא ךיתוצמ־לא יפכ־אשאו‘And I will raise up my hands toward your commandments, which I love.’

Ps 119:48

ךתרות יתבהא־המ‘How I love your law!’

Ps 119:97

׃יתבהא ךתרותו‘But I love your law.’

Ps 119:113

ךיתדע יתבהא ןכל‘Therefore I love your testimonies.’

Ps 119:119

זפמו בהזמ ךיתוצמ יתבהא ןכ־לע‘Therefore I love your commandments more than gold and fine gold.’

Ps 119:127

ךמש יבהאל טפשמכ יננחו ילא־הנפ‘Turn to me and have mercy upon me, as justice is done with those who love your name.’

Ps 119:132

אמ ךתרמא הפורצ ׃הבהא ךדבעו ד‘Your word is pure, and your servant loves it.’

Ps 119:140

י יתבהא ךידוקפ־יכ האר הוה‘Look, I love your precepts, Yhwh!’

Ps 119:159

יתבהא ךתרותו הבעתאו יתאנש רקש‘I hate and abhor falsehood, but your law I love.’

Ps 119:163

ר םולש ךתרות יבהאל ב‘Those who love your law have much peace.’

Ps 119:165

נ הרמש אמ םבהאו ךיתדע ישפ ׃ד‘My soul keep your testimonies, and I love them very much.’

Ps 119:167

ךיבהא וילשי‘Those who love you shall have peace.’

Ps 122:6

ויבהא־לכ־תא הוהי רמוש‘Yhwh keeps all those who love him.’

Ps 145:20

םיקדצ בהא הוהי‘Yhwh loves the righteous.’

Ps 146:8

יתפ ובהאת םיתפ יתמ־דע‘How long, fools, you will love foolishness?’

Prov 1:22

חיכוי הוהי בהאי רשא תא יכ‘For Yhwh reproves those who love him.’

Prov 3:12

ךירצתו היבהא‘Love it and it will guard you.’

Prov 4:6

תע־לכב ךורי הידד ןח־תלעיו םיבהא תליא‘A lovely hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts saturate you at all times;’

Prov 5:19

דימת הגשת התבהאב‘Be always passionately devoted to her love.’

Prov 5:19

םיבהאב הסלעתנ‘Let us delight ourselves with love.’

Prov 7:18

בהא היבהא ינא‘I love those who love me.’

Prov 8:17


Appendix I ׀ 190

שי יבהא ליחנהל‘To grant inheritance to those who love me.’

Prov 8:21

תומ ובהא יאנשמ־לכ‘All those who hate me love death.’

Prov 8:36

ךבהאיו םכחל חכוה‘Reprove the wise and he will love you.’

Prov 9:8

הבהא הסכת םיעשפ־לכ לעו‘But love covers all transgressions.’

Prov 10:12

תעד בהא רסומ בהא‘Whoever loves discipline loved knowledge;’

Prov 12:1

רסומ ורחש ובהאו ונב אנוש וטבש ךשוח‘He who spares the rod hate his son, but he who loves him promotes discipline in him.’

Prov 13:24

םיבר רישע יבהאו‘But there are many who love the rich.’

Prov 14:20

בהאי הקדצ ףדרמו עשר ךרד הוהי תבעות‘The evil’s way is an abomination to Yhwh, but he loves him who pursues righteousness.’

Prov 15:9

ול חכוה ץל־בהאי אל‘A scoffer does not love to be reproved.’

Prov 15:12

וב־האנשו סובא רושמ םש־הבהאו קרי תחרא בוט‘A vegetable meal with love in there, is better than a fattened ox with hatred with it.’

Prov 15:17

בהאי םירשי רבדו קדצ־יתפש םיכלמ ןוצר‘Lips of righteousness (righteousness speech) is what kings wish for, and they love him who speaks right.’

Prov 16:13

הבהא שקבמ עשפ־הסכמ‘Whoever covers transgression, seeks love.’

Prov 17:9

ערה בהא תע־לכב‘A friend loves at all times.’

Prov 17:17

הצמ בהא עשפ בהא‘Whoever loves transgression loves quarrel.’

Prov 17:19

הירפ לכאי היבהאו ןושל־דיב םייחו תומ‘Death and life are in the hand of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit.’

Prov 18:21

חאמ קבד בהא שיו‘But there are those who love, who sticks closer than a brother.’

Prov 18:24

ושפנ בהא בל־הנק‘Whoever acquires sense love his own soul.’

Prov 19:8

שרות־ןפ הנש בהאת־לא‘Love not sleep lest you will become poor.’

Prov 20:13

החמש בהא רוסחמ שא‘A man of scarcity loves joy,’

Prov 21:17

רישעי אל ןמשו־ןיי בהא‘Whoever loves wine and oil will not be rich.’

Prov 21:17

ךלמ והער ויתפש ןח בל־רהט בהא‘Whoever loves pureness of the heart, and his lips (speech) are gracious, a king is a friend to him.’

Prov 22:11

תרתסמ הבהאמ הלגמ תחכות הבוט‘Better is open reprove than hidden love.’

Prov 27:5

בהוא יעצפ םינמאנ‘Faithful are the wounds caused by a loving one.’

Prov 27:6

ויבא חמשי המכח בהא־שיא‘He who loves wisdom, rejoices his father.’

Prov 29:3

יב־וכפהנ יתבהא הזו‘And those whom I loved have turned against me.’

Job 19:19

םינב העבשמ ךל הבוט איה־רשא ותדלי ךתבהא־רשא ךתלכ יכ‘For your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.’

Ruth 4:15

ךובהא תומלע ןכ־לע‘Therefore maiden love you.’

Song 1:3

ךובהא םירשימ‘Rightly they love you.’

Song 1:4

ישפנ הבהאש יל הדיגה‘Tell me, you whom my soul loves,’

Song 1:7

הבהא ילע ולגדו‘And his banner over me was love.’

Song 2:4

ינא הבהא תלוח־יכ‘For I am love-sick.’

Song 2:5

לשורי תונב םכתא יתעבשה ץפחתש דע הבהאה־תא וררועת־םאו וריעת־םא הדשה תוליאב וא תואבצב ם‘I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, in gazelles or in the hinds of the field, that you will not arouse or awaken love until it desires.’

Song 2:7

ישפנ הבהאש תא יתשקב תולילב יבכשמ־לע‘On my bed at night, I sought he whom my soul loves.’

Song 3:1

ישפנ הבהאש תא השקבא‘I seek he whom my soule loves.’

Song 3:2

םתיאר ישפנ הבהאש תא‘Have you seen him whom my soul loves?’

Song 3:3

ישפנ הבהאש תא יתאצמש דע‘when I found he whom y soul loves.’

Song 3:4


Song 3:5

םלשורי תונבמ הבהא ףוצר וכות‘Its interior was laid with love from the daughters of Jerusalem.’

Song 3:10

ינא הבהא תלוחש‘That I am love-sick.’

Song 5:8

םיגונעתב הבהא תמענ־המו תיפי־המ‘How beautiful and pleasant you are, love, with delights!’

Song 7:7

לשורי תונב םכתא יתעבשה ץפחתש דע הבהאה־תא וררועת־םאו וריעת־םא ם‘I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, that you will not arouse or awaken love until it desires.’

Song 8:4

הבהא תומכ הזע־יכ‘For love is strong strong as death.’

Song 8:6

הופטשי אל תורהנו הבהאה־תא תובכל ולכוי אל םיבר םימ‘Many waters cannot quench love, neither can rivers wash it away.’

Song 8:7

ול וזובי זוב הבהאב ותיב ןוה־לכ־תא שיא ןתי־םא‘If a man would give all the substance of his house for love, he would be utterly despised.’

Song 8:7

היבהא־לכמ םחנמ הל־ןיא‘Among all her lovers, she has no one to comfort her.’

Lam 1:2

ינומר המה יבהאמל יתארק‘I called my lovers, but they deceived me.’

Lam 1:19

אנשל תעו בהאל תע‘A time to love and a time to hate.’

Eccl 3:8

ףסכ בשי־אל ףסכ בהא‘Whoever loves money will not be satisfied with money,’

Eccl 5:9

האובת אל ןומהב בהא־ימו‘nor he who loves abundance, with harvest.’

Eccl 5:9

םדאה עדוי ןיא האנש םג הבהא םג‘Whether it is love or hatred, man does not know.’

Eccl 9:1

הדבא רבכ םתאנק־םג םתאנשםתאנש־םג םתבהא םג‘Their love and their hatred and their jealousy have already perished,’

Eccl 9:6

ךלבה ימי לכ תבהא רשא השא־םע םייח האר‘See the life with a woman whom you love all the days of your vain life,’

Eccl 9:9

םישנה־לכמ רתסא־תא ךלמה בהאיו‘The king loved Esther more than all the women,’

Esth 2:17

׃ותשא שרז־תאו ויבהא־תא אביו חלשיו‘He sent and brought his friends and his wife Zeresh.’

Esth 5:10

ויבהא־לכו ותשא שרז ול רמאתו‘His wife Zeresh and his friends said to him:’

Esth 5:14


Appendix I 191 ׀

שי יבהא ליחנהל‘To grant inheritance to those who love me.’

Prov 8:21

תומ ובהא יאנשמ־לכ‘All those who hate me love death.’

Prov 8:36

ךבהאיו םכחל חכוה‘Reprove the wise and he will love you.’

Prov 9:8

הבהא הסכת םיעשפ־לכ לעו‘But love covers all transgressions.’

Prov 10:12

תעד בהא רסומ בהא‘Whoever loves discipline loved knowledge;’

Prov 12:1

רסומ ורחש ובהאו ונב אנוש וטבש ךשוח‘He who spares the rod hate his son, but he who loves him promotes discipline in him.’

Prov 13:24

םיבר רישע יבהאו‘But there are many who love the rich.’

Prov 14:20

בהאי הקדצ ףדרמו עשר ךרד הוהי תבעות‘The evil’s way is an abomination to Yhwh, but he loves him who pursues righteousness.’

Prov 15:9

ול חכוה ץל־בהאי אל‘A scoffer does not love to be reproved.’

Prov 15:12

וב־האנשו סובא רושמ םש־הבהאו קרי תחרא בוט‘A vegetable meal with love in there, is better than a fattened ox with hatred with it.’

Prov 15:17

בהאי םירשי רבדו קדצ־יתפש םיכלמ ןוצר‘Lips of righteousness (righteousness speech) is what kings wish for, and they love him who speaks right.’

Prov 16:13

הבהא שקבמ עשפ־הסכמ‘Whoever covers transgression, seeks love.’

Prov 17:9

ערה בהא תע־לכב‘A friend loves at all times.’

Prov 17:17

הצמ בהא עשפ בהא‘Whoever loves transgression loves quarrel.’

Prov 17:19

הירפ לכאי היבהאו ןושל־דיב םייחו תומ‘Death and life are in the hand of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit.’

Prov 18:21

חאמ קבד בהא שיו‘But there are those who love, who sticks closer than a brother.’

Prov 18:24

ושפנ בהא בל־הנק‘Whoever acquires sense love his own soul.’

Prov 19:8

שרות־ןפ הנש בהאת־לא‘Love not sleep lest you will become poor.’

Prov 20:13

החמש בהא רוסחמ שא‘A man of scarcity loves joy,’

Prov 21:17

רישעי אל ןמשו־ןיי בהא‘Whoever loves wine and oil will not be rich.’

Prov 21:17

ךלמ והער ויתפש ןח בל־רהט בהא‘Whoever loves pureness of the heart, and his lips (speech) are gracious, a king is a friend to him.’

Prov 22:11

תרתסמ הבהאמ הלגמ תחכות הבוט‘Better is open reprove than hidden love.’

Prov 27:5

בהוא יעצפ םינמאנ‘Faithful are the wounds caused by a loving one.’

Prov 27:6

ויבא חמשי המכח בהא־שיא‘He who loves wisdom, rejoices his father.’

Prov 29:3

יב־וכפהנ יתבהא הזו‘And those whom I loved have turned against me.’

Job 19:19

םינב העבשמ ךל הבוט איה־רשא ותדלי ךתבהא־רשא ךתלכ יכ‘For your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.’

Ruth 4:15

ךובהא תומלע ןכ־לע‘Therefore maiden love you.’

Song 1:3

ךובהא םירשימ‘Rightly they love you.’

Song 1:4

ישפנ הבהאש יל הדיגה‘Tell me, you whom my soul loves,’

Song 1:7

הבהא ילע ולגדו‘And his banner over me was love.’

Song 2:4

ינא הבהא תלוח־יכ‘For I am love-sick.’

Song 2:5


Song 2:7

ישפנ הבהאש תא יתשקב תולילב יבכשמ־לע‘On my bed at night, I sought he whom my soul loves.’

Song 3:1

ישפנ הבהאש תא השקבא‘I seek he whom my soule loves.’

Song 3:2

םתיאר ישפנ הבהאש תא‘Have you seen him whom my soul loves?’

Song 3:3

ישפנ הבהאש תא יתאצמש דע‘when I found he whom y soul loves.’

Song 3:4


Song 3:5

םלשורי תונבמ הבהא ףוצר וכות‘Its interior was laid with love from the daughters of Jerusalem.’

Song 3:10

ינא הבהא תלוחש‘That I am love-sick.’

Song 5:8

םיגונעתב הבהא תמענ־המו תיפי־המ‘How beautiful and pleasant you are, love, with delights!’

Song 7:7

לשורי תונב םכתא יתעבשה ץפחתש דע הבהאה־תא וררועת־םאו וריעת־םא ם‘I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, that you will not arouse or awaken love until it desires.’

Song 8:4

הבהא תומכ הזע־יכ‘For love is strong strong as death.’

Song 8:6

הופטשי אל תורהנו הבהאה־תא תובכל ולכוי אל םיבר םימ‘Many waters cannot quench love, neither can rivers wash it away.’

Song 8:7

ול וזובי זוב הבהאב ותיב ןוה־לכ־תא שיא ןתי־םא‘If a man would give all the substance of his house for love, he would be utterly despised.’

Song 8:7

היבהא־לכמ םחנמ הל־ןיא‘Among all her lovers, she has no one to comfort her.’

Lam 1:2

ינומר המה יבהאמל יתארק‘I called my lovers, but they deceived me.’

Lam 1:19

אנשל תעו בהאל תע‘A time to love and a time to hate.’

Eccl 3:8

ףסכ בשי־אל ףסכ בהא‘Whoever loves money will not be satisfied with money,’

Eccl 5:9

האובת אל ןומהב בהא־ימו‘nor he who loves abundance, with harvest.’

Eccl 5:9

םדאה עדוי ןיא האנש םג הבהא םג‘Whether it is love or hatred, man does not know.’

Eccl 9:1

הדבא רבכ םתאנק־םג םתאנשםתאנש־םג םתבהא םג‘Their love and their hatred and their jealousy have already perished,’

Eccl 9:6

ךלבה ימי לכ תבהא רשא השא־םע םייח האר‘See the life with a woman whom you love all the days of your vain life,’

Eccl 9:9

םישנה־לכמ רתסא־תא ךלמה בהאיו‘The king loved Esther more than all the women,’

Esth 2:17

׃ותשא שרז־תאו ויבהא־תא אביו חלשיו‘He sent and brought his friends and his wife Zeresh.’

Esth 5:10

ויבהא־לכו ותשא שרז ול רמאתו‘His wife Zeresh and his friends said to him:’

Esth 5:14


Appendix I ׀ 192

והרק רשא־לכ תא ויבהא־לכלו ותשא שרזל ןמה רפסיו‘Haman told his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that had happened to him.’

Esth 6:13

ויתוצמ ירמשלו ויבהאל דסחהו תירבה רמוש

‘… who keeps the covenant and the loving-kindness with those who love him and keep his commandments.’

Dan 9:4

ויתוצמ ירמשלו ויבהאל דסחו תירבה רמוש‘…who keeps the covenant and the loving-kindness with those who love him and keep his commandments.’

Neh 1:5

היה ויהלאל בוהאו‘… and he was beloved by his god.’

Neh 13:26

ךלמ םהילע ךנתנ ומע־תא הוהי תבהאב‘Out of Yhwh’s love for his people, he made you a king over them.’

2Chr 2:10

לארשי־תא ךיהלא תבהאב‘Out of Yhwh’s love for Israel…’

2Chr 9:8

וישגלפו וישנ־לכמ םולשבא־תב הכעמ־תא םעבחר בהאיו‘Rehoboam loved Maachah daughter of Absalom more than all his wives and concubines…’

2Chr 11:21

בהאת הוהי יאנשלו רזעל עשרלה‘Should you help the wicked and love those who hate Yhwh?’

2Chr 19:2

ךבהא םהרבא ערזל הנתתו‘…you gave it to the offsprings of Abraham, who loved you forever.’

2Chr 20:7

היה המדא בהא־יכ‘…for he loved the soil.’

2Chr 26:10

Appendix II. A corpus of 41 instances of māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênê ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’ in Biblical Hebrew

Gen 6:8 :hDwh◊y y¶EnyEoV;b N™Ej aDx¶Dm Aj›On◊w ‘But Noah has found favour in the eyes of Yhwh’

:ÔKá®;dVbAo l¶AoEm räObSoAt a¶Dn_lAa ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm a∏În_MIa yGÎnOdSa r¡Amaø¥yÅw ‘He said: “if I have found favour in your eye please do not pass by your servant”.’

Gen 19:19 ÔKy‰nyEoV;b NEj ÔK;dVbAo a°DxDm aÎn_h…nIh ‘Please behold, your servant has found favour in your eyes…’

Gen 30:27 :ÔK`RlDl◊gI;b h™Dwh◊y yn¶EkßrDb◊yÅw yI;tVv›Ajn ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej yIta¶DxDm a¢Dn_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes I foretell that Yhwh will bless me thanks to you.’

Gen 32:6 :ÔKy`RnyEoV;b N™Ej_aøxVmIl yYˆnOdaèAl dyI…gAhVl ‹hDjVlVvRa ‘And I have sent to tell my lord to find favour in your eyes’

Gen 33:8 :yInOdSa y¶EnyEoV;b N™Ej_aøxVmIl rRmaÁø¥yÅw ‘He said: “to find favour in the eyes of my lord”.’

Gen 33:10 yóîdÎ¥yIm y™ItDj◊nIm ¶D;tVjåqDl ◊w ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm a∏În_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes, please take my gift from my hand.’

Gen 33:15 :yInOdSa y¶EnyEoV;b N™Ej_aDxVmRa hY‰z hD;mDl ‹rRma‹ø¥yÅw ‘He said: “why would I find favour in the eyes of my lord?”.’

Gen 34:11 :NE;tRa y™AlEa …wÿrVmaø;t r¶RvSaÅw M¡RkynyEoV;b N™Ej_aDxVmRa ‘I shall find favour in your eyes, and I will give you whatever you ask me for.’

Gen 39:4 wóøtOa t®rDv ◊yÅw wy™DnyEoV;b N¢Ej P¶Eswøy a°DxVm¥yÅw ‘Josef has found favour in his eyes and he was serving him.’

Gen 47:25 :háOorApVl MyäîdDbSo …wny¶IyDh◊w yYˆnOdSa yEnyEoV;b ‹NEj_aDxVmn …wn¡DtˆyTjRh …wërVmaø¥yÅw ‘They said: you have saved our lives, we shall find favour in the eyes of my lord and we will be servants to Pharaoh.’

Gen 47:29 t$RmTa‰w dRsRj ‹yîdD;mIo Dty§IcDo◊w y¡Ikér◊y tAjA;t äÔKdÎy a¶Dn_MyIc ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm a∏În_Mia

:MyárVxImV;b ynäérV;bVqIt a¶Dn_lAa ‘If I have found favour in the eyes of my lord, please put your hand under my thigh. You shall treat me with loving-kindness and truth, please do not burry me in Egypt.’

Gen 50:4 häOorAp y¶En◊zDaV;b aÁÎn_…wrV;bå;d M$RkynyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm a∏În_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes please talk to Pharaoh’

Exod 33:12 :yDnyEoV;b N™Ej Dta¶DxDm_MÅg◊w M$EvVb áÔKyI;tVoåd◊y ‹D;tr‹AmDa h§D;tAa◊w ‘And you have said: “I know you by name and you have also found favour in my eyes”.’

Exod 33:13 ÔK$Rkr;d_tRa ‹aÎn yˆn§Eoîdwøh ÔKyG‰nyEoV;b N%Ej yIta°DxDm ·aÎn_MIa h&D;tAo◊w ‘And now if I have found favour in your eyes, please show me your ways.’

Exod 33:13 ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej_aDxVmRa NAo¶AmVl ‘…so that I will find favour in your eyes.’

Exod 3:16 ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm_yÌ;k aw#øpEa oâådÎ…wˆy —hR;mAb…w ‘And how will it become clear that I have found favour in your eyes?’

Exod 33:17 Ky‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm_yÌ;k aw#øpEa oâådÎ…wˆy —hR;mAb…w

‘And how will it become clear that I have found favour in your eyes?’ Exod 34:9 yYÅnyEoV;b ‹NEj Dta§DxDm_yÌ;k h¡RcToRa D;tr™A;bî;d r¶RvSa h¢RzAh r¶Db;dAh_tRa MA…g

‘I will do that thing you said as well, because you have found favour in my eyes.’

Num 11:11 wn¡E;brIqV;b y™DnOdSa a¶Dn_JKRlÈy yYÎnOdSa ‹ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm ·aÎn_MIa rRmaÓø¥yÅw ‘He said: “if I have found favour in your eyes, my lord, my lord shall please walk among us”.’

Num 11:15 :yDlDo h™RzAh M¶DoDh_lD;k a¢DÚcAm_tRa M…w#cDl ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej yIt¶DxDm_aøl hD;m¢Dl ◊w ‘And why haven’t I found favour in your eyes, that you lay the burden of the whole people on me?’

Num 32:5 ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej yIta¶DxDm_MIa g$OrDh ‹aÎn yˆn§EgrDh ‘Do kill me if I have found favour in your eyes.’


והרק רשא־לכ תא ויבהא־לכלו ותשא שרזל ןמה רפסיו‘Haman told his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that had happened to him.’

Esth 6:13

ויתוצמ ירמשלו ויבהאל דסחהו תירבה רמוש

‘… who keeps the covenant and the loving-kindness with those who love him and keep his commandments.’

Dan 9:4

ויתוצמ ירמשלו ויבהאל דסחו תירבה רמוש‘…who keeps the covenant and the loving-kindness with those who love him and keep his commandments.’

Neh 1:5

היה ויהלאל בוהאו‘… and he was beloved by his god.’

Neh 13:26

ךלמ םהילע ךנתנ ומע־תא הוהי תבהאב‘Out of Yhwh’s love for his people, he made you a king over them.’

2Chr 2:10

לארשי־תא ךיהלא תבהאב‘Out of Yhwh’s love for Israel…’

2Chr 9:8

וישגלפו וישנ־לכמ םולשבא־תב הכעמ־תא םעבחר בהאיו‘Rehoboam loved Maachah daughter of Absalom more than all his wives and concubines…’

2Chr 11:21

בהאת הוהי יאנשלו רזעל עשרלה‘Should you help the wicked and love those who hate Yhwh?’

2Chr 19:2

ךבהא םהרבא ערזל הנתתו‘…you gave it to the offsprings of Abraham, who loved you forever.’

2Chr 20:7

היה המדא בהא־יכ‘…for he loved the soil.’

2Chr 26:10

Appendix II. A corpus of 41 instances of māṣā’ ḥēn bə‘ênê ‘X finds favour in Y’s eyes’ in Biblical Hebrew

Gen 6:8 :hDwh◊y y¶EnyEoV;b N™Ej aDx¶Dm Aj›On◊w ‘But Noah has found favour in the eyes of Yhwh’

:ÔKá®;dVbAo l¶AoEm räObSoAt a¶Dn_lAa ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm a∏În_MIa yGÎnOdSa r¡Amaø¥yÅw ‘He said: “if I have found favour in your eye please do not pass by your servant”.’

Gen 19:19 ÔKy‰nyEoV;b NEj ÔK;dVbAo a°DxDm aÎn_h…nIh ‘Please behold, your servant has found favour in your eyes…’

Gen 30:27 :ÔK`RlDl◊gI;b h™Dwh◊y yn¶EkßrDb◊yÅw yI;tVv›Ajn ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej yIta¶DxDm a¢Dn_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes I foretell that Yhwh will bless me thanks to you.’

Gen 32:6 :ÔKy`RnyEoV;b N™Ej_aøxVmIl yYˆnOdaèAl dyI…gAhVl ‹hDjVlVvRa ‘And I have sent to tell my lord to find favour in your eyes’

Gen 33:8 :yInOdSa y¶EnyEoV;b N™Ej_aøxVmIl rRmaÁø¥yÅw ‘He said: “to find favour in the eyes of my lord”.’

Gen 33:10 yóîdÎ¥yIm y™ItDj◊nIm ¶D;tVjåqDl ◊w ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm a∏În_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes, please take my gift from my hand.’

Gen 33:15 :yInOdSa y¶EnyEoV;b N™Ej_aDxVmRa hY‰z hD;mDl ‹rRma‹ø¥yÅw ‘He said: “why would I find favour in the eyes of my lord?”.’

Gen 34:11 :NE;tRa y™AlEa …wÿrVmaø;t r¶RvSaÅw M¡RkynyEoV;b N™Ej_aDxVmRa ‘I shall find favour in your eyes, and I will give you whatever you ask me for.’

Gen 39:4 wóøtOa t®rDv ◊yÅw wy™DnyEoV;b N¢Ej P¶Eswøy a°DxVm¥yÅw ‘Josef has found favour in his eyes and he was serving him.’

Gen 47:25 :háOorApVl MyäîdDbSo …wny¶IyDh◊w yYˆnOdSa yEnyEoV;b ‹NEj_aDxVmn …wn¡DtˆyTjRh …wërVmaø¥yÅw ‘They said: you have saved our lives, we shall find favour in the eyes of my lord and we will be servants to Pharaoh.’

Gen 47:29 t$RmTa‰w dRsRj ‹yîdD;mIo Dty§IcDo◊w y¡Ikér◊y tAjA;t äÔKdÎy a¶Dn_MyIc ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm a∏În_Mia

:MyárVxImV;b ynäérV;bVqIt a¶Dn_lAa ‘If I have found favour in the eyes of my lord, please put your hand under my thigh. You shall treat me with loving-kindness and truth, please do not burry me in Egypt.’

Gen 50:4 häOorAp y¶En◊zDaV;b aÁÎn_…wrV;bå;d M$RkynyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm a∏În_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes please talk to Pharaoh’

Exod 33:12 :yDnyEoV;b N™Ej Dta¶DxDm_MÅg◊w M$EvVb áÔKyI;tVoåd◊y ‹D;tr‹AmDa h§D;tAa◊w ‘And you have said: “I know you by name and you have also found favour in my eyes”.’

Exod 33:13 ÔK$Rkr;d_tRa ‹aÎn yˆn§Eoîdwøh ÔKyG‰nyEoV;b N%Ej yIta°DxDm ·aÎn_MIa h&D;tAo◊w ‘And now if I have found favour in your eyes, please show me your ways.’

Exod 33:13 ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej_aDxVmRa NAo¶AmVl ‘…so that I will find favour in your eyes.’

Exod 3:16 ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm_yÌ;k aw#øpEa oâådÎ…wˆy —hR;mAb…w ‘And how will it become clear that I have found favour in your eyes?’

Exod 33:17 Ky‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm_yÌ;k aw#øpEa oâådÎ…wˆy —hR;mAb…w

‘And how will it become clear that I have found favour in your eyes?’ Exod 34:9 yYÅnyEoV;b ‹NEj Dta§DxDm_yÌ;k h¡RcToRa D;tr™A;bî;d r¶RvSa h¢RzAh r¶Db;dAh_tRa MA…g

‘I will do that thing you said as well, because you have found favour in my eyes.’

Num 11:11 wn¡E;brIqV;b y™DnOdSa a¶Dn_JKRlÈy yYÎnOdSa ‹ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm ·aÎn_MIa rRmaÓø¥yÅw ‘He said: “if I have found favour in your eyes, my lord, my lord shall please walk among us”.’

Num 11:15 :yDlDo h™RzAh M¶DoDh_lD;k a¢DÚcAm_tRa M…w#cDl ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej yIt¶DxDm_aøl hD;m¢Dl ◊w ‘And why haven’t I found favour in your eyes, that you lay the burden of the whole people on me?’

Num 32:5 ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej yIta¶DxDm_MIa g$OrDh ‹aÎn yˆn§EgrDh ‘Do kill me if I have found favour in your eyes.’


Appendix II ׀ 194

Deut 24:1 ÔKyä®dDbSoAl taöøzAh X®rªDaDh_tRa NA;ty ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj …wna§DxDm_MIa ‘If we have found favour in your eyes, give this land to your servants.’

Judg 6:17 r$Dbd tAwrRo ‹;hDb aDx§Dm_yI;k wyGÎnyEoV;b NEj_aDxVmIt a¬øl_MIa ‘[…]if she will not find favour in his eyes, because he had found indecency in her […]’

1Sam 1:18 :yI;mIo r¶E;bådVm h™D;tAaDv tw$øa ‹yI;l Dty§IcDo◊w ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej yIta¶DxDm a¢Dn_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes, give me a sign that you talk to me.’

1Sam 16:22 Ky¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej öÔKVtDjVpIv aªDxVmI;t rRma›ø;tÅw ‘She said: “let your servant find favour in your eyes”.’

1Sam 20:3 :yDnyEoV;b N™Ej aDx¶Dm_yI;k yYÅnDpVl ‹dˆwd a§Dn_dDmSoÅy ‘Let David stand before me, as he has found favour in my eyes.’

1Sam 20:29 ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm_yÌ;k ÔKy#IbDa o%ådÎy Ao°OdÎy ‘Your father certainly knows that I have found favour in your eyes.’

1Sam 25:8 y¡DjRa_tRa hRarRa◊w a™D…n hDfVl¶D;mIa ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm_MIa h#D;tAo◊w ‘And now if I have found favour in your eyes, let me escape and see my broth-ers.’

1Sam 27:5 a§DxVmI;t r°RvSa ·tEa aGÎ…n_hÎnV;t ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj MyñîrDo◊…nAh …w°aVxVmy ◊w ‘If the boys will find favour in your eyes […] give all what you can find.’

2Sam 14:22 hä®dDÚcAh yñérDo t¢AjAaV;b Mw#øqDm yIl_…wnV;tˆy ‹ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm ·aÎn_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes, let them give me a place to stay in one of the field- towns.’

2Sam 15:25 JKRl$R;mAh yInOdSa ‹ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm_yI;k %ÔK;dVbAo o°ådÎy ·Mwø¥yAh ‘Today your servant knows that I have found favour in your eyes.’

2Sam 16:4 :…whEwÎn_tRa◊w wäøtOa yn¶AarIh◊w yn›AbIvTh‰w hYÎwh◊y yEnyEoV;b ‹NEj a¶DxVmRa_MIa ‘If I will find favour in the eyes of Yhwh he will take me back and will show me himself and his dwelling.’

1Kings 11:19 :JKRl`R;mAh y¶InOdSa ÔKy™RnyEoV;b N¶Ej_aDxVmRa yItyY´wSjA;tVvÌh ‹aDbyIx rRmaôø¥yÅw ‘Ziba said: “I have bowed, I shall find favour in the eyes of my lord.’

Prov 3:4 dóOaVm häOorAp y¶EnyEoV;b N¢Ej dñådSh ‹aDxVm¥yÅw ‘Hadad has found great favour in the eyes of Pharaoh.’

Ruth 2:2 :MádDa◊w MyIhølTa y™EnyEoV;b bwóøf_lRkEc◊w N™Ej_aDxVm…w ‘And find favour and good understandig in the eyes of God and man.’

Ruth 2:10 wy¡DnyEoV;b N™Ej_aDxVmRa r¶RvSa r›AjAa My$IlF;bIvAb hDÚfƒqAlSaÅw ‹h®dDÚcAh a§D…n_hDkVlÈa ‘I will go to the field and will collect grain after him in whose eyes I shall find favour.’

Ruth 2:13 :hD¥yîrVkÎn y™IkOnDÆa◊w yn$éryI;kAhVl ‹ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm ·Ao…w;dAm ‘Why have I found favour in your eyes that you notice me, and I am a for-eigner?’

Esther 5:8 ÔK¡RtDjVpIv bEl_lAo D;tr™A;bîd y¶Ik◊w yn$D;tVmAjIn yI;k ‹yˆnOdSa ÔKy§RnyEoV;b N°Ej_aDxVmRa rRmaø;tÅw

‘She said: “I will find favour in your eyes, for you have comforted me and you have spoken to your servant’s heart”.’

Esther 7:3 KRl#R;mAh yEnyEoV;b N%Ej yIta°DxDm_MIa ‘If I have found favour in the eyes of the king.’

Esther 8:5 wy¡DnyEoV;b y™InSa h¶Dbwøf◊w JKRl$R;mAh yEnVpIl ‹rDb;dAh r§EvDk◊w wyGÎnDpVl NEj yItaªDxDm_MIa◊w ‘If I have found favour before his face and the king approves and I am good in his eyes’

Samenvatting (summary in Dutch) Het lexeem ’hb 'liefde' komt voor in het Bijbels Hebreeuws (BH) in verschillende contexten met menselijke, goddelijke en levenloze entiteiten als subject en object. De verdeling van ’hb over de bijbelse teksten laat zien dat de betekenis ervan niet altijd eenvoudig kan worden be-grepen als liefde of genegenheid in de traditionele zin van het woord, en ook niet als een in-nerlijke gemoedstoestand. Bovendien staat ’hb niet noodzakelijk voor een spontane reactie op een externe prikkel of stimulus, ofschoon emoties in het algemeen vaak wel zo worden uitge-legd in de cognitieve taalkunde. In het BH verwijst ’hb naar diverse uiteenlopende typen soci-ale interacties, gedrag of activiteiten. Eerder is reeds beschreven dat de term ’hb ongelijk ver-deeld is over de geslachten van de betrokken participanten. Degene die liefheeft is vaker een man en degene van wie gehouden wordt is vaker een vrouw. En de sociale status van het subject is vaker hoger dan die van het object. Deze observaties rechtvaardigen het vermoeden dat er een verband bestaat tussen ’hb en sociale relaties in het algemeen, en sociale hiërarchische relaties in het bijzonder. In dit proefschrift wordt de rol onderzocht die sociale hiërarchie speelt bij het gebruik van ’hb. Ongelijkheid blijkt zich te manifesteren in patronen van (i) unidirectionaliteit en (ii) se-mantische asymmetrie. Onder unidirectionaliteit wordt verstaan een verschil in sociale status tussen menselijke deelnemers dat in ’hb-gebeurtenissen leidt tot de prototypische richting van een liefhebbend subject met een hogere sociale status naar een geliefde persoon met een lagere sociale status. Semantische asymmetrie betreft de betekenis van het lexeem ’hb zelf. Onder-zocht wordt of de waargenomen hiërarchische patronen er op wijzen dat ’hb inherent hiërar-chisch is, zoals bijvoorbeeld ṣwh הוצ( ) 'bevelen' een hiërarchische kern heeft, omdat degene die beveelt altijd een hogere status heeft dan degene die het bevel ontvangt. De studie van de vol-ledige distributie van ’hb wijst echter uit dat dit lexeem niet inherent hiërarchisch is. De atypi-sche gevallen waarin ’hb voorkomt, bijvoorbeeld wanneer het liefhebbend subject een vrouw is, laten zien dat dit lexeem een fundamentele semantische kern heeft die onafhankelijk is van sociale identiteit. Met andere woorden, het vermogen om te ervaren wat ’hb betekent, is geen exclusieve eigenschap van individuen met een hogere sociale status of functie. Dit komt niet alleen naar voren in contexten waarin de godheid een rol speelt, maar geldt ook voor mannen en vrouwen binnen het kader van romantiek en voor slaven en meesters binnen het kader van politiek. In deze dissertatie staat de sociaal-culturele conceptualisatie van ’hb in het BH centraal. Belangrijke onderzoeksvragen zijn: wat is de mogelijke rol die ’hb speelt in het BH en wat zijn de sociaal-culturele opvattingen die aan deze rol ten grondslag liggen? Hoe weerspiegelt het gebruik van ’hb de sociale orde van het oude Israël? De focus van dit onderzoek ligt op de sociale orde van de oude Israëlitische cultuur als een belangrijke conceptuele bron voor het gebruik van ’hb in het BH. Daarbij is het onderzoek zelf cognitief-linguïstisch van aard met een sociaal-culturele oriëntatie. Het is gebaseerd op een corpusonderzoek van de volledige da-taset van de 252 instanties van ’hb in de Hebreeuwse Bijbel, waarbij uitdrukkelijk aandacht wordt besteed aan de taalkundige en bijbelse contexten waarin dit lexeem voorkomt. Na de inleiding in Hoofdstuk 1, presenteert Hoofdstuk 2 analytische concepten in het onder-zoek van emotie in cognitieve taalkunde. Het laat zien hoe het vocabulaire van emoties en de constructies van woorden die emoties uitdrukken een rijke bron van informatie vormen voor


Deut 24:1 ÔKyä®dDbSoAl taöøzAh X®rªDaDh_tRa NA;ty ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj …wna§DxDm_MIa ‘If we have found favour in your eyes, give this land to your servants.’

Judg 6:17 r$Dbd tAwrRo ‹;hDb aDx§Dm_yI;k wyGÎnyEoV;b NEj_aDxVmIt a¬øl_MIa ‘[…]if she will not find favour in his eyes, because he had found indecency in her […]’

1Sam 1:18 :yI;mIo r¶E;bådVm h™D;tAaDv tw$øa ‹yI;l Dty§IcDo◊w ÔKy¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej yIta¶DxDm a¢Dn_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes, give me a sign that you talk to me.’

1Sam 16:22 Ky¡RnyEoV;b N™Ej öÔKVtDjVpIv aªDxVmI;t rRma›ø;tÅw ‘She said: “let your servant find favour in your eyes”.’

1Sam 20:3 :yDnyEoV;b N™Ej aDx¶Dm_yI;k yYÅnDpVl ‹dˆwd a§Dn_dDmSoÅy ‘Let David stand before me, as he has found favour in my eyes.’

1Sam 20:29 ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm_yÌ;k ÔKy#IbDa o%ådÎy Ao°OdÎy ‘Your father certainly knows that I have found favour in your eyes.’

1Sam 25:8 y¡DjRa_tRa hRarRa◊w a™D…n hDfVl¶D;mIa ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj yIta§DxDm_MIa h#D;tAo◊w ‘And now if I have found favour in your eyes, let me escape and see my broth-ers.’

1Sam 27:5 a§DxVmI;t r°RvSa ·tEa aGÎ…n_hÎnV;t ÔKyY‰nyEoV;b ‹NEj MyñîrDo◊…nAh …w°aVxVmy ◊w ‘If the boys will find favour in your eyes […] give all what you can find.’

2Sam 14:22 hä®dDÚcAh yñérDo t¢AjAaV;b Mw#øqDm yIl_…wnV;tˆy ‹ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm ·aÎn_MIa ‘If I have found favour in your eyes, let them give me a place to stay in one of the field- towns.’

2Sam 15:25 JKRl$R;mAh yInOdSa ‹ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm_yI;k %ÔK;dVbAo o°ådÎy ·Mwø¥yAh ‘Today your servant knows that I have found favour in your eyes.’

2Sam 16:4 :…whEwÎn_tRa◊w wäøtOa yn¶AarIh◊w yn›AbIvTh‰w hYÎwh◊y yEnyEoV;b ‹NEj a¶DxVmRa_MIa ‘If I will find favour in the eyes of Yhwh he will take me back and will show me himself and his dwelling.’

1Kings 11:19 :JKRl`R;mAh y¶InOdSa ÔKy™RnyEoV;b N¶Ej_aDxVmRa yItyY´wSjA;tVvÌh ‹aDbyIx rRmaôø¥yÅw ‘Ziba said: “I have bowed, I shall find favour in the eyes of my lord.’

Prov 3:4 dóOaVm häOorAp y¶EnyEoV;b N¢Ej dñådSh ‹aDxVm¥yÅw ‘Hadad has found great favour in the eyes of Pharaoh.’

Ruth 2:2 :MádDa◊w MyIhølTa y™EnyEoV;b bwóøf_lRkEc◊w N™Ej_aDxVm…w ‘And find favour and good understandig in the eyes of God and man.’

Ruth 2:10 wy¡DnyEoV;b N™Ej_aDxVmRa r¶RvSa r›AjAa My$IlF;bIvAb hDÚfƒqAlSaÅw ‹h®dDÚcAh a§D…n_hDkVlÈa ‘I will go to the field and will collect grain after him in whose eyes I shall find favour.’

Ruth 2:13 :hD¥yîrVkÎn y™IkOnDÆa◊w yn$éryI;kAhVl ‹ÔKy‹‰nyEoV;b N§Ej yIta°DxDm ·Ao…w;dAm ‘Why have I found favour in your eyes that you notice me, and I am a for-eigner?’

Esther 5:8 ÔK¡RtDjVpIv bEl_lAo D;tr™A;bîd y¶Ik◊w yn$D;tVmAjIn yI;k ‹yˆnOdSa ÔKy§RnyEoV;b N°Ej_aDxVmRa rRmaø;tÅw

‘She said: “I will find favour in your eyes, for you have comforted me and you have spoken to your servant’s heart”.’

Esther 7:3 KRl#R;mAh yEnyEoV;b N%Ej yIta°DxDm_MIa ‘If I have found favour in the eyes of the king.’

Esther 8:5 wy¡DnyEoV;b y™InSa h¶Dbwøf◊w JKRl$R;mAh yEnVpIl ‹rDb;dAh r§EvDk◊w wyGÎnDpVl NEj yItaªDxDm_MIa◊w ‘If I have found favour before his face and the king approves and I am good in his eyes’

Samenvatting (summary in Dutch) Het lexeem ’hb 'liefde' komt voor in het Bijbels Hebreeuws (BH) in verschillende contexten met menselijke, goddelijke en levenloze entiteiten als subject en object. De verdeling van ’hb over de bijbelse teksten laat zien dat de betekenis ervan niet altijd eenvoudig kan worden be-grepen als liefde of genegenheid in de traditionele zin van het woord, en ook niet als een in-nerlijke gemoedstoestand. Bovendien staat ’hb niet noodzakelijk voor een spontane reactie op een externe prikkel of stimulus, ofschoon emoties in het algemeen vaak wel zo worden uitge-legd in de cognitieve taalkunde. In het BH verwijst ’hb naar diverse uiteenlopende typen soci-ale interacties, gedrag of activiteiten. Eerder is reeds beschreven dat de term ’hb ongelijk ver-deeld is over de geslachten van de betrokken participanten. Degene die liefheeft is vaker een man en degene van wie gehouden wordt is vaker een vrouw. En de sociale status van het subject is vaker hoger dan die van het object. Deze observaties rechtvaardigen het vermoeden dat er een verband bestaat tussen ’hb en sociale relaties in het algemeen, en sociale hiërarchische relaties in het bijzonder. In dit proefschrift wordt de rol onderzocht die sociale hiërarchie speelt bij het gebruik van ’hb. Ongelijkheid blijkt zich te manifesteren in patronen van (i) unidirectionaliteit en (ii) se-mantische asymmetrie. Onder unidirectionaliteit wordt verstaan een verschil in sociale status tussen menselijke deelnemers dat in ’hb-gebeurtenissen leidt tot de prototypische richting van een liefhebbend subject met een hogere sociale status naar een geliefde persoon met een lagere sociale status. Semantische asymmetrie betreft de betekenis van het lexeem ’hb zelf. Onder-zocht wordt of de waargenomen hiërarchische patronen er op wijzen dat ’hb inherent hiërar-chisch is, zoals bijvoorbeeld ṣwh הוצ( ) 'bevelen' een hiërarchische kern heeft, omdat degene die beveelt altijd een hogere status heeft dan degene die het bevel ontvangt. De studie van de vol-ledige distributie van ’hb wijst echter uit dat dit lexeem niet inherent hiërarchisch is. De atypi-sche gevallen waarin ’hb voorkomt, bijvoorbeeld wanneer het liefhebbend subject een vrouw is, laten zien dat dit lexeem een fundamentele semantische kern heeft die onafhankelijk is van sociale identiteit. Met andere woorden, het vermogen om te ervaren wat ’hb betekent, is geen exclusieve eigenschap van individuen met een hogere sociale status of functie. Dit komt niet alleen naar voren in contexten waarin de godheid een rol speelt, maar geldt ook voor mannen en vrouwen binnen het kader van romantiek en voor slaven en meesters binnen het kader van politiek. In deze dissertatie staat de sociaal-culturele conceptualisatie van ’hb in het BH centraal. Belangrijke onderzoeksvragen zijn: wat is de mogelijke rol die ’hb speelt in het BH en wat zijn de sociaal-culturele opvattingen die aan deze rol ten grondslag liggen? Hoe weerspiegelt het gebruik van ’hb de sociale orde van het oude Israël? De focus van dit onderzoek ligt op de sociale orde van de oude Israëlitische cultuur als een belangrijke conceptuele bron voor het gebruik van ’hb in het BH. Daarbij is het onderzoek zelf cognitief-linguïstisch van aard met een sociaal-culturele oriëntatie. Het is gebaseerd op een corpusonderzoek van de volledige da-taset van de 252 instanties van ’hb in de Hebreeuwse Bijbel, waarbij uitdrukkelijk aandacht wordt besteed aan de taalkundige en bijbelse contexten waarin dit lexeem voorkomt. Na de inleiding in Hoofdstuk 1, presenteert Hoofdstuk 2 analytische concepten in het onder-zoek van emotie in cognitieve taalkunde. Het laat zien hoe het vocabulaire van emoties en de constructies van woorden die emoties uitdrukken een rijke bron van informatie vormen voor


Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) ׀ 196

onderliggende (culturele) opvattingen. Er wordt aandacht besteed aan basiscategorisatie van emotietermen, prototypicaliteit als verklaring voor polysemie, het belang van beeldspraak en figuurlijke taal met daarin in het bijzonder conceptuele metaforen en metoniemen. Verder be-spreekt Hoofdstuk 2 prominente richtingen in de conceptualisatie van emotie, namelijk uni-versele versus cultuurspecifieke ervaring, en de mogelijke synthese tussen de twee. In het laat-ste deel van het hoofdstuk wordt de sociaal-culturele cognitie van emotie gepresenteerd als de belangrijkste benadering die in dit proefschrift wordt uitgewerkt. Deze benadering beschouwt ’hb als een sociaal-cultureel concept binnen het discours van BH zonder de fysieke en cogni-tieve aspecten van ’hb-ervaringen, die in verschillende mate aanwezig kunnen zijn, uit te slui-ten. Het eerste deel van Hoofdstuk 3 biedt een aantal beknopte overzichten van bevindingen met betrekking tot de conceptualisering van emoties (anders dan ’hb) in de Hebreeuwse Bij-bel. De selectie bestaat hoofdzakelijk uit recente studies en het is beperkt tot studies met een linguïstisch perspectief, dat wil zeggen, studies gebaseerd op het voorkomen van emotietermen en niet op studies waarin emotiegebeurtenissen worden afgeleid uit de context. Het overzicht betreft de emoties van angst, woede, vreugde, verdriet, schaamte, jaloezie en haat. Emoties in BH blijken een complexe categorie te vormen van ervaringen die (fysieke) gevoelens en sociale (hiërarchische) relaties met zich meebrengen, interpersoonlijk of tussen mensen en God; waar-bij laatstgenoemde relatie een terugkerend thema is in de Hebreeuwse Bijbel. Het tweede deel van Hoofdstuk 3 bespreekt de belangrijke ontwikkelingen in het onderzoek naar ’hb in het BH. De belangrijkste ontwikkeling in de studie van ’hb tot nog toe betreft een uitbreiding van de reikwijdte. Deze strekt zich uit van specifieke bijbelse thematische of contextuele studies tot onderzoek (van het gehele corpus) ook vanuit een niet-bijbels perspectief, zoals filologisch, lexicologisch en cultureel-evolutionair. Het polysemische karakter van ’hb, de diversiteit aan contexten en de niet altijd voor de hand liggende relaties vergroten de mogelijkheid dat dit lexeem een belangrijke rol speelt in BH, die verder reikt dan zijn lexicale betekenissen. Een gedetailleerde analyse van het gebruik van ’hb is het thema van Hoofdstuk 4 waar het lexeem wordt onderzocht binnen negen culturele domeinen waarin het voorkomt, namelijk Goddelijkheid, Verwantschap, Overspel, Romantiek, Sociale Relaties, Politiek, Gedrag/Acti-viteit, Levenloze Concrete Objecten en Levenloze Abstracte Objecten. Binnen deze domeinen worden ’hb-gebeurtenissen onderzocht op basis van de sociaal-culturele identiteit, het geslacht en leven/levenloosheid (‘gender/animacy’) van het liefhebbend subject en het geliefde ob-ject. De analyse resulteert in een uitgebreider verslag van het gebruik van ’hb en de associatie daarvan met socialiteit en sociaal-culturele orde, en laat zien hoe het gebruik van ’hb wordt aangepast aan elke specifieke context en cultureel domein. Naast de opvallende semantische asymmetrie in het domein Goddelijkheid, valt de prototypische geslacht-gebaseerde hiërarchie op in de culturele domeinen Verwantschap en Overspel. Beide patronen duiden op sociale hi-erarchie, hetzij door beperkingen op de identiteit van de liefhebbende en de geliefde, hetzij door onderscheiden betekenis van ’hb met verschillende identiteiten van de liefhebbende sub-jecten. Afgezien van deze twee duidelijke patronen, wordt een algemene mannelijke dominan-tie in het gebruik van ’hb aangegeven door de algehele ondervertegenwoordiging van vrouwen in de rol van zowel de liefhebbende als de geliefde. Dit kan een algemeen patroon weerspiege-len dat ook in andere bijbelse teksten bestaat ongeacht het gebruik van ’hb. De analyse in dit hoofdstuk laat verder zien dat een zekere mate van volitie een belangrijk onderdeel van ’hb is,

met name in het domein van Goddelijkheid, maar ook in andere domeinen. Bovendien heeft het gebruik van ’hb met een levenloze geliefde (niet goddelijk-gerelateerd) een evaluerende rol en draagt daardoor bij aan het sociaal-culturele profiel van het lexeem. Ten slotte laat dit hoofd-stuk duidelijk zien dat het semantische veld van ’hb in BH complex en rijk is. Nog belangrijker is dat de observaties hier ondersteunen het idee dat ’hb prototypisch sociale interactie uitdrukt en in mindere mate een individuele innerlijke emotionele toestand. Hoofdstuk 5 gaat uitgebreid in op de volitieve aspecten van ’hb en de impliciete semantische transitiviteit dat die volitie meebrengt, binnen het theoretisch perspectief van prototypische transitiviteit. Met name wordt aandacht besteed aan een model van maximaal onderscheid tus-sen agens en patiens (Næss 2007). De verscheidenheid aan grammaticale constructies die kun-nen worden gebruikt om transitieve gebeurtenissen van verschillende niveaus in BH uit te druk-ken, maakt een onderzoek met bredere omvang en perspectief mogelijk. Het hoofdstuk laat zien dat de transitiviteit in ’hb-gebeurtenissen niet absoluut is maar scalair, gedreven door de specifieke contexten en culturele domeinen waarin die gebeurtenissen voorkomen. Die transitiviteit is gebaseerd op een onderliggende conceptualisatie van deze gebeurtenissen, die vertaald kunnen worden in scenario's met een aantal deelnemers. Het verschil in transitivi-teit tussen culturele domeinen weerspiegelt de polysemie van ’hb in BH, die bestaat uit spon-tane affectie/affiniteit/aantrekkelijkheid maar ook uit (vrijwillig) gedrag en daden. De mate van transitiviteit in ’hb-gebeurtenissen wordt niet noodzakelijk aangegeven door een semantisch-syntactische overeenkomst. Relatief hogere transitieve gebeurtenissen met volitionele, initi-erende deelnemers zijn niet noodzakelijkerwijs uitgedrukt door de transitieve construc-tie: [X ’hb (/’hb X) (ACC) Y]. Aan de andere kant duidt deze constructie niet noodzakelijker-wijs op een hoge mate van transitiviteit. Hoofdstuk 6 onderzoekt de cognitieve en culturele motieven die ten grondslag liggen aan de socialiteit van ’hb, in de context van de sociaal-culturele systemen van het oude Israël (met name het verwantschapssysteem) als conceptuele bron. Het onderzoek levert correlaties op tus-sen de zeer elementaire en intieme verwantschapsrelaties (zoals huwelijk en ouderschap) en het prototypische, sociaal-culturele, hiërarchische gebruik van ’hb. Verwantschap blijkt niet alleen de kern van de sociaal-culturele structuur, maar ook de conceptuele bron te zijn van het gebruik van ’hb in het culturele domein van Goddelijkheid. Dat is ook zo in andere domeinen waar een verschillende mate van intimiteit tussen de deelnemers van ’hb- gebeurtenissen vast te stellen is. Verwantschap als de conceptuele bron van het gebruik van ’hb ligt ook ten grond-slag aan de nadrukkelijke, evaluatieve, faciliterende rol die dit lexeem speelt in contexten waar de geliefde levenloos is. Dit resulteert in de volgende twee verwante sociaal-culturele model-len: (i) toewijding/betrokkenheid/inzet, en (ii) evaluatie. Na de onderzoeken uit hoofdstukken 4, 5 en 6 presenteert Hoofdstuk 7 een vergelijking tus-sen het gebruik van ’hb en lexemen van vijf andere concepten in BH, namelijk verdriet, ge-zichtsvermogen, horen, slaan en doden. Het doel van deze vergelijking is om een bredere per-spectief te bieden voor het onderzoek van ’hb en zijn conceptuele associaties met de sociaal-culturele orde. De vergelijking is gebaseerd op vier factoren die in het onderzoek van ’hb wor-den gebruikt, namelijk culturele domeinen, geslacht en leven/levenloosheid van de deelnemers, volitie, en sociale hiërarchie. De vergelijking resulteert in een algemene overeenstemming tus-sen de verschillende lexemen, maar ook in enkele belangrijke genuanceerde verschillen. Er is gelijkenis gevonden in het algemene verband tussen het gebruik van de lexemen en sociale


Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) 197 ׀

onderliggende (culturele) opvattingen. Er wordt aandacht besteed aan basiscategorisatie van emotietermen, prototypicaliteit als verklaring voor polysemie, het belang van beeldspraak en figuurlijke taal met daarin in het bijzonder conceptuele metaforen en metoniemen. Verder be-spreekt Hoofdstuk 2 prominente richtingen in de conceptualisatie van emotie, namelijk uni-versele versus cultuurspecifieke ervaring, en de mogelijke synthese tussen de twee. In het laat-ste deel van het hoofdstuk wordt de sociaal-culturele cognitie van emotie gepresenteerd als de belangrijkste benadering die in dit proefschrift wordt uitgewerkt. Deze benadering beschouwt ’hb als een sociaal-cultureel concept binnen het discours van BH zonder de fysieke en cogni-tieve aspecten van ’hb-ervaringen, die in verschillende mate aanwezig kunnen zijn, uit te slui-ten. Het eerste deel van Hoofdstuk 3 biedt een aantal beknopte overzichten van bevindingen met betrekking tot de conceptualisering van emoties (anders dan ’hb) in de Hebreeuwse Bij-bel. De selectie bestaat hoofdzakelijk uit recente studies en het is beperkt tot studies met een linguïstisch perspectief, dat wil zeggen, studies gebaseerd op het voorkomen van emotietermen en niet op studies waarin emotiegebeurtenissen worden afgeleid uit de context. Het overzicht betreft de emoties van angst, woede, vreugde, verdriet, schaamte, jaloezie en haat. Emoties in BH blijken een complexe categorie te vormen van ervaringen die (fysieke) gevoelens en sociale (hiërarchische) relaties met zich meebrengen, interpersoonlijk of tussen mensen en God; waar-bij laatstgenoemde relatie een terugkerend thema is in de Hebreeuwse Bijbel. Het tweede deel van Hoofdstuk 3 bespreekt de belangrijke ontwikkelingen in het onderzoek naar ’hb in het BH. De belangrijkste ontwikkeling in de studie van ’hb tot nog toe betreft een uitbreiding van de reikwijdte. Deze strekt zich uit van specifieke bijbelse thematische of contextuele studies tot onderzoek (van het gehele corpus) ook vanuit een niet-bijbels perspectief, zoals filologisch, lexicologisch en cultureel-evolutionair. Het polysemische karakter van ’hb, de diversiteit aan contexten en de niet altijd voor de hand liggende relaties vergroten de mogelijkheid dat dit lexeem een belangrijke rol speelt in BH, die verder reikt dan zijn lexicale betekenissen. Een gedetailleerde analyse van het gebruik van ’hb is het thema van Hoofdstuk 4 waar het lexeem wordt onderzocht binnen negen culturele domeinen waarin het voorkomt, namelijk Goddelijkheid, Verwantschap, Overspel, Romantiek, Sociale Relaties, Politiek, Gedrag/Acti-viteit, Levenloze Concrete Objecten en Levenloze Abstracte Objecten. Binnen deze domeinen worden ’hb-gebeurtenissen onderzocht op basis van de sociaal-culturele identiteit, het geslacht en leven/levenloosheid (‘gender/animacy’) van het liefhebbend subject en het geliefde ob-ject. De analyse resulteert in een uitgebreider verslag van het gebruik van ’hb en de associatie daarvan met socialiteit en sociaal-culturele orde, en laat zien hoe het gebruik van ’hb wordt aangepast aan elke specifieke context en cultureel domein. Naast de opvallende semantische asymmetrie in het domein Goddelijkheid, valt de prototypische geslacht-gebaseerde hiërarchie op in de culturele domeinen Verwantschap en Overspel. Beide patronen duiden op sociale hi-erarchie, hetzij door beperkingen op de identiteit van de liefhebbende en de geliefde, hetzij door onderscheiden betekenis van ’hb met verschillende identiteiten van de liefhebbende sub-jecten. Afgezien van deze twee duidelijke patronen, wordt een algemene mannelijke dominan-tie in het gebruik van ’hb aangegeven door de algehele ondervertegenwoordiging van vrouwen in de rol van zowel de liefhebbende als de geliefde. Dit kan een algemeen patroon weerspiege-len dat ook in andere bijbelse teksten bestaat ongeacht het gebruik van ’hb. De analyse in dit hoofdstuk laat verder zien dat een zekere mate van volitie een belangrijk onderdeel van ’hb is,

met name in het domein van Goddelijkheid, maar ook in andere domeinen. Bovendien heeft het gebruik van ’hb met een levenloze geliefde (niet goddelijk-gerelateerd) een evaluerende rol en draagt daardoor bij aan het sociaal-culturele profiel van het lexeem. Ten slotte laat dit hoofd-stuk duidelijk zien dat het semantische veld van ’hb in BH complex en rijk is. Nog belangrijker is dat de observaties hier ondersteunen het idee dat ’hb prototypisch sociale interactie uitdrukt en in mindere mate een individuele innerlijke emotionele toestand. Hoofdstuk 5 gaat uitgebreid in op de volitieve aspecten van ’hb en de impliciete semantische transitiviteit dat die volitie meebrengt, binnen het theoretisch perspectief van prototypische transitiviteit. Met name wordt aandacht besteed aan een model van maximaal onderscheid tus-sen agens en patiens (Næss 2007). De verscheidenheid aan grammaticale constructies die kun-nen worden gebruikt om transitieve gebeurtenissen van verschillende niveaus in BH uit te druk-ken, maakt een onderzoek met bredere omvang en perspectief mogelijk. Het hoofdstuk laat zien dat de transitiviteit in ’hb-gebeurtenissen niet absoluut is maar scalair, gedreven door de specifieke contexten en culturele domeinen waarin die gebeurtenissen voorkomen. Die transitiviteit is gebaseerd op een onderliggende conceptualisatie van deze gebeurtenissen, die vertaald kunnen worden in scenario's met een aantal deelnemers. Het verschil in transitivi-teit tussen culturele domeinen weerspiegelt de polysemie van ’hb in BH, die bestaat uit spon-tane affectie/affiniteit/aantrekkelijkheid maar ook uit (vrijwillig) gedrag en daden. De mate van transitiviteit in ’hb-gebeurtenissen wordt niet noodzakelijk aangegeven door een semantisch-syntactische overeenkomst. Relatief hogere transitieve gebeurtenissen met volitionele, initi-erende deelnemers zijn niet noodzakelijkerwijs uitgedrukt door de transitieve construc-tie: [X ’hb (/’hb X) (ACC) Y]. Aan de andere kant duidt deze constructie niet noodzakelijker-wijs op een hoge mate van transitiviteit. Hoofdstuk 6 onderzoekt de cognitieve en culturele motieven die ten grondslag liggen aan de socialiteit van ’hb, in de context van de sociaal-culturele systemen van het oude Israël (met name het verwantschapssysteem) als conceptuele bron. Het onderzoek levert correlaties op tus-sen de zeer elementaire en intieme verwantschapsrelaties (zoals huwelijk en ouderschap) en het prototypische, sociaal-culturele, hiërarchische gebruik van ’hb. Verwantschap blijkt niet alleen de kern van de sociaal-culturele structuur, maar ook de conceptuele bron te zijn van het gebruik van ’hb in het culturele domein van Goddelijkheid. Dat is ook zo in andere domeinen waar een verschillende mate van intimiteit tussen de deelnemers van ’hb- gebeurtenissen vast te stellen is. Verwantschap als de conceptuele bron van het gebruik van ’hb ligt ook ten grond-slag aan de nadrukkelijke, evaluatieve, faciliterende rol die dit lexeem speelt in contexten waar de geliefde levenloos is. Dit resulteert in de volgende twee verwante sociaal-culturele model-len: (i) toewijding/betrokkenheid/inzet, en (ii) evaluatie. Na de onderzoeken uit hoofdstukken 4, 5 en 6 presenteert Hoofdstuk 7 een vergelijking tus-sen het gebruik van ’hb en lexemen van vijf andere concepten in BH, namelijk verdriet, ge-zichtsvermogen, horen, slaan en doden. Het doel van deze vergelijking is om een bredere per-spectief te bieden voor het onderzoek van ’hb en zijn conceptuele associaties met de sociaal-culturele orde. De vergelijking is gebaseerd op vier factoren die in het onderzoek van ’hb wor-den gebruikt, namelijk culturele domeinen, geslacht en leven/levenloosheid van de deelnemers, volitie, en sociale hiërarchie. De vergelijking resulteert in een algemene overeenstemming tus-sen de verschillende lexemen, maar ook in enkele belangrijke genuanceerde verschillen. Er is gelijkenis gevonden in het algemene verband tussen het gebruik van de lexemen en sociale


Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) ׀ 198

hiërarchie in BH. Bovendien duidt het gebruik van alle lexemen van de zes concepten op een algemene mannelijke dominantie. Op basis van de vier factoren blijkt het gebruik van ’hb het meest vergelijkbaar te zijn met het gebruik van de waarneming-lexemen, en in het bijzonder het gebruik van r’h 'gezichtsvermogen’. De resultaten suggereren verder dat volitie, geslacht en leven/levenloosheid meer invloed kunnen hebben in de vergelijking dan de andere twee factoren (i.e., culturele domeinen en sociale hiërarchie). Dit impliceert dat het gebruik van ’hb niet alleen de algemene sociale hiërarchie en mannelijke dominantie van de bijbelse teksten weerspiegelt, maar ook een specifieke relatie weergeeft tussen ’hb en socialiteit. Hoofd-stuk 7 heeft eerder een belangrijke verkennende waarde dan dat het een doorslaggevende con-clusie presenteert. Hoofdstuk 8 is een casestudy over het gebruik van een ander emotie concept in BH, namelijk ḥen 'gunst', gebruikt in de idiomatische constructie māṣā ’ḥēn bə‘êynêy 'X vindt gunst in ogen van Y'. Deze constructie drukt positieve genegenheid uit, van God gericht tot mensen of tussen mensen onderling. Het figuratieve karakter wordt uitgedrukt door een syntactisch-semantische ‘mismatch’, die op zijn beurt het oude Israëlische culturele model van gunst weerspiegelt in relatie tot de ogen. Dit model wordt uitgebreid om te voorzien in pragmatische behoeften, na-melijk het benadrukken van de (socioculturele) hiërarchische relaties tussen de deelnemers aan gunst-gebeurtenissen. Het gebruik van bovengenoemde constructie in BH demonstreert een bijkomend geval van de synthese tussen basis, universele ervaring en sociaal-culturele ervaring die in deze taal bestaat. Net als bij het gebruik van ’hb in BH, benadrukt het gebruik van deze constructie de belangrijke rol die context speelt in betekenis en conceptualisatie. Ook het naast elkaar bestaan van verschillende ervaringsaspecten die ten grondslag liggen aan taalgebruik, wordt door de context verhelderd. Net als ’hb, wordt deze idiomatische constructie ook ge-bruikt om bepaalde sociaal-culturele normen en waarden van de oude Israëlitische cultuur over te brengen. Samenvattend, het gebruik van ’hb weerspiegelt een complexe cognitief-linguïstische con-ceptie dat gebaseerd is op zowel universele (fysieke) als culturele ervaringsgerichte realitei-ten. In feite laat het zien dat de twee soorten ervaring, verweven in de conceptualisering van ’hb, niet gemakkelijk te onderscheiden zijn. Taalkundig heeft ’hb een rijk semantisch veld dat alle aspecten van het leven in de oude Israëlitische cultuur omvat, van de primaire interper-soonlijke tot politiek-goddelijke relaties, van elementaire tot meer complexe sociale interacties en activiteiten, en van alledaagse, concrete zaken tot ideologische abstracte ideeën. Het emoti-onele kernelement van ’hb is in uiteenlopende mate aanwezig in al deze aspecten en lagen. Tekstueel fungeert dit rijke semantische veld, of polysemie, als een sociaal-cultureel model van het oude Israël, zoals dit wordt weerspiegeld in de Hebreeuwse Bijbel. Dit model bestaat uit twee sub-modellen: (i) toewijding/betrokkenheid/inzet en (ii) Evaluatie. Elk van de twee omvat een aantal aspecten van de oude sociaal-culturele orde en de gerelateerde culturele do-meinen waarin ’hb voorkomt. Het prototypische hiërarchische gebruik van ’hb is een concep-tuele uitbreiding van de hiërarchische relaties van de samenleving; dat wil zeggen, hiërarchie is niet een kernelement van ’hb, maar het is daaraan gekoppeld door de sociale, hiërarchische verhoudingen waarin ’hb is betrokken De meest fundamentele primaire elementen van ’hb ma-ken deze extensie of overdracht mogelijk. De polysemie van ’hb, aangegeven door de semantische uitbreiding van de meest elemen-taire intieme relaties tot alle andere contexten, is gebaseerd op de conceptuele associaties

tussen de twee categorieën. Vanuit een sociaal-cultureel perspectief dient de semantische ex-tensie ideologische doelen, namelijk het verleent, assimileert en verankert ideale waarden. Dit wordt cognitief mogelijk gemaakt door analogie van de volgende twee soorten: (1) tussen de fundamentele, primaire sociale structuur en de later ontwikkelde sociale structuur, in het bij-zonder het idee van God als een opperste verwantschaps- en koningschap-gerelateerde soeve-rein, en (2) tussen interpersoonlijke aantrekkingskracht/gehechtheid en menselijke aantrek-kingskracht voor levenloze objecten. In bijbelse termen is de polysemie van ’hb in BH doelge-richt, dat wil zeggen, het dient de literaire teksten, maar dit wordt mogelijk gemaakt door de onderliggende opvattingen die de juiste links tussen de bron en zijn extensies creëren. De niet-prototypische, maar aanwezige transitiviteit van ’hb laat zien dat semantische tran-sitiviteit niet alleen een grammaticale categorie of fenomeen is, maar dat het ook cultuur gere-lateerd is. De cultuurafhankelijke conceptualisatie van ’hb is ook de onderliggende motivatie van de transitiviteit van dit lexeem. Met andere woorden, het specifieke gebruik van ’hb en zijn sterke associatie met de sociaal-culturele orde van het oude Israël brengt in zekere mate tran-sitiviteit teweeg. Bovendien bestaat er een negatieve correlatie tussen de mate van transitiviteit en intimiteit, evenals een positieve correlatie tussen de mate van transitiviteit en polyse-mie. Hoe intiemer de relaties zijn die ’hb uitdrukt (bijv. ouder-kind), hoe minder transi-tief ’hb is, maar de ontwikkeling van transitiviteit van meer tot minder intieme relaties (bijv. mens-goddelijk) loopt parallel met de ontwikkeling van polysemie. Tenslotte brengt de waargenomen geslacht-gebaseerde hiërarchie in huwelijksrelaties in feite de identiteit van vrouwen op de voorgrond. Binnen de hiërarchische structuur van het verwantschapssysteem en de gebruikelijke gewoonte van polygamie, is de associatie tussen genegenheid en sentimentele affiniteit in de context van het huwelijk helemaal niet vanzelfsprekend. In de gevallen waarin ’hb voorkomt, werkt dat in het voordeel van de vrouwelijke geliefde, met nadruk op haar actieve rol, opmerkelijke persoonlijkheid, of kracht. De kracht van vrouwen in de bijbelse teksten wordt vaak aangegeven door hun verborgen activiteiten en gedrag of door hun aanwezigheid in het verhaal als vrouw. Binnen het sociaal-culturele model van ’hb in dit proefschrift heeft het waargenomen patroon van geslacht-gebaseerde hiërarchie dus niet noodzakelijk een negatieve connotatie of een discriminerende betekenis.


Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch) 199 ׀

hiërarchie in BH. Bovendien duidt het gebruik van alle lexemen van de zes concepten op een algemene mannelijke dominantie. Op basis van de vier factoren blijkt het gebruik van ’hb het meest vergelijkbaar te zijn met het gebruik van de waarneming-lexemen, en in het bijzonder het gebruik van r’h 'gezichtsvermogen’. De resultaten suggereren verder dat volitie, geslacht en leven/levenloosheid meer invloed kunnen hebben in de vergelijking dan de andere twee factoren (i.e., culturele domeinen en sociale hiërarchie). Dit impliceert dat het gebruik van ’hb niet alleen de algemene sociale hiërarchie en mannelijke dominantie van de bijbelse teksten weerspiegelt, maar ook een specifieke relatie weergeeft tussen ’hb en socialiteit. Hoofd-stuk 7 heeft eerder een belangrijke verkennende waarde dan dat het een doorslaggevende con-clusie presenteert. Hoofdstuk 8 is een casestudy over het gebruik van een ander emotie concept in BH, namelijk ḥen 'gunst', gebruikt in de idiomatische constructie māṣā ’ḥēn bə‘êynêy 'X vindt gunst in ogen van Y'. Deze constructie drukt positieve genegenheid uit, van God gericht tot mensen of tussen mensen onderling. Het figuratieve karakter wordt uitgedrukt door een syntactisch-semantische ‘mismatch’, die op zijn beurt het oude Israëlische culturele model van gunst weerspiegelt in relatie tot de ogen. Dit model wordt uitgebreid om te voorzien in pragmatische behoeften, na-melijk het benadrukken van de (socioculturele) hiërarchische relaties tussen de deelnemers aan gunst-gebeurtenissen. Het gebruik van bovengenoemde constructie in BH demonstreert een bijkomend geval van de synthese tussen basis, universele ervaring en sociaal-culturele ervaring die in deze taal bestaat. Net als bij het gebruik van ’hb in BH, benadrukt het gebruik van deze constructie de belangrijke rol die context speelt in betekenis en conceptualisatie. Ook het naast elkaar bestaan van verschillende ervaringsaspecten die ten grondslag liggen aan taalgebruik, wordt door de context verhelderd. Net als ’hb, wordt deze idiomatische constructie ook ge-bruikt om bepaalde sociaal-culturele normen en waarden van de oude Israëlitische cultuur over te brengen. Samenvattend, het gebruik van ’hb weerspiegelt een complexe cognitief-linguïstische con-ceptie dat gebaseerd is op zowel universele (fysieke) als culturele ervaringsgerichte realitei-ten. In feite laat het zien dat de twee soorten ervaring, verweven in de conceptualisering van ’hb, niet gemakkelijk te onderscheiden zijn. Taalkundig heeft ’hb een rijk semantisch veld dat alle aspecten van het leven in de oude Israëlitische cultuur omvat, van de primaire interper-soonlijke tot politiek-goddelijke relaties, van elementaire tot meer complexe sociale interacties en activiteiten, en van alledaagse, concrete zaken tot ideologische abstracte ideeën. Het emoti-onele kernelement van ’hb is in uiteenlopende mate aanwezig in al deze aspecten en lagen. Tekstueel fungeert dit rijke semantische veld, of polysemie, als een sociaal-cultureel model van het oude Israël, zoals dit wordt weerspiegeld in de Hebreeuwse Bijbel. Dit model bestaat uit twee sub-modellen: (i) toewijding/betrokkenheid/inzet en (ii) Evaluatie. Elk van de twee omvat een aantal aspecten van de oude sociaal-culturele orde en de gerelateerde culturele do-meinen waarin ’hb voorkomt. Het prototypische hiërarchische gebruik van ’hb is een concep-tuele uitbreiding van de hiërarchische relaties van de samenleving; dat wil zeggen, hiërarchie is niet een kernelement van ’hb, maar het is daaraan gekoppeld door de sociale, hiërarchische verhoudingen waarin ’hb is betrokken De meest fundamentele primaire elementen van ’hb ma-ken deze extensie of overdracht mogelijk. De polysemie van ’hb, aangegeven door de semantische uitbreiding van de meest elemen-taire intieme relaties tot alle andere contexten, is gebaseerd op de conceptuele associaties

tussen de twee categorieën. Vanuit een sociaal-cultureel perspectief dient de semantische ex-tensie ideologische doelen, namelijk het verleent, assimileert en verankert ideale waarden. Dit wordt cognitief mogelijk gemaakt door analogie van de volgende twee soorten: (1) tussen de fundamentele, primaire sociale structuur en de later ontwikkelde sociale structuur, in het bij-zonder het idee van God als een opperste verwantschaps- en koningschap-gerelateerde soeve-rein, en (2) tussen interpersoonlijke aantrekkingskracht/gehechtheid en menselijke aantrek-kingskracht voor levenloze objecten. In bijbelse termen is de polysemie van ’hb in BH doelge-richt, dat wil zeggen, het dient de literaire teksten, maar dit wordt mogelijk gemaakt door de onderliggende opvattingen die de juiste links tussen de bron en zijn extensies creëren. De niet-prototypische, maar aanwezige transitiviteit van ’hb laat zien dat semantische tran-sitiviteit niet alleen een grammaticale categorie of fenomeen is, maar dat het ook cultuur gere-lateerd is. De cultuurafhankelijke conceptualisatie van ’hb is ook de onderliggende motivatie van de transitiviteit van dit lexeem. Met andere woorden, het specifieke gebruik van ’hb en zijn sterke associatie met de sociaal-culturele orde van het oude Israël brengt in zekere mate tran-sitiviteit teweeg. Bovendien bestaat er een negatieve correlatie tussen de mate van transitiviteit en intimiteit, evenals een positieve correlatie tussen de mate van transitiviteit en polyse-mie. Hoe intiemer de relaties zijn die ’hb uitdrukt (bijv. ouder-kind), hoe minder transi-tief ’hb is, maar de ontwikkeling van transitiviteit van meer tot minder intieme relaties (bijv. mens-goddelijk) loopt parallel met de ontwikkeling van polysemie. Tenslotte brengt de waargenomen geslacht-gebaseerde hiërarchie in huwelijksrelaties in feite de identiteit van vrouwen op de voorgrond. Binnen de hiërarchische structuur van het verwantschapssysteem en de gebruikelijke gewoonte van polygamie, is de associatie tussen genegenheid en sentimentele affiniteit in de context van het huwelijk helemaal niet vanzelfsprekend. In de gevallen waarin ’hb voorkomt, werkt dat in het voordeel van de vrouwelijke geliefde, met nadruk op haar actieve rol, opmerkelijke persoonlijkheid, of kracht. De kracht van vrouwen in de bijbelse teksten wordt vaak aangegeven door hun verborgen activiteiten en gedrag of door hun aanwezigheid in het verhaal als vrouw. Binnen het sociaal-culturele model van ’hb in dit proefschrift heeft het waargenomen patroon van geslacht-gebaseerde hiërarchie dus niet noodzakelijk een negatieve connotatie of een discriminerende betekenis.


Biographical notes

Ruti Vardi was born in Tiberias, Israel in 1962. She studied visual arts in Tel Aviv and held various positions in the fields of press photography, print media and television. In 2008, she received her bachelor degree in Linguistics at Radboud University, Nijmegen. During her mas-ter's studies in Linguistics, she did an internship in cognitive semantics at the Tel Aviv Univer-sity under the supervision of Prof. Tamar Sovran. In 2011, she graduated cum laude with a dissertation on the intensification of affection in Israeli Hebrew. During her work on the Ph.D thesis at the Department of Theology she taught a BA course in Biblical Hebrew and published articles on constructions of emotion in Israeli and Biblical Hebrew.


Biographical notes

Ruti Vardi was born in Tiberias, Israel in 1962. She studied visual arts in Tel Aviv and held various positions in the fields of press photography, print media and television. In 2008, she received her bachelor degree in Linguistics at Radboud University, Nijmegen. During her mas-ter's studies in Linguistics, she did an internship in cognitive semantics at the Tel Aviv Univer-sity under the supervision of Prof. Tamar Sovran. In 2011, she graduated cum laude with a dissertation on the intensification of affection in Israeli Hebrew. During her work on the Ph.D thesis at the Department of Theology she taught a BA course in Biblical Hebrew and published articles on constructions of emotion in Israeli and Biblical Hebrew.

ruthvardi

Highlight

Erratum: The word 'dissertation' is erroneous, 'thesis' is the correct word.


550338-L-os-Vardi550338-L-os-Vardi550338-L-os-Vardi550338-L-os-Vardi

Love and commitment The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb ‘love’ in Biblical Hebrew Ruti Vardi

Love and comm

itment The sociocultural conceptualisation of ’hb ‘love’ in B

iblical Hebrew

Ruti Vardi

Documents

Love and commitment - Radboud Repository